Crl. Misc.No. M-12346 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc.No. M-12346 of 2010 Date of decision : 01.04.2011 Paramjit Singh ......Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Anil Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Munish Kumar, AAG, Punjab for respondent No. 1-State Mr. Vishaldeep Goel, Advocate for respondent No. 2 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.218 dated 10.11.2009 (Annexure P-1) under Section 306 of IPC, registered at Police Station Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived and executed an affidavit dated 24.04.2010 (Annexure P-2) by the complainant/respondent No. 2 Brief facts of the case are that the son of the complainant was working as a servant in the fields of petitioner and he also had received his complete annual salary from the petitioner. The son of the complainant was drug addicted and never used to perform his duty diligently, inspite of receiving the salary in advance. So, due to addiction of narcotic substance, Crl. Misc.No. M-12346 of 2010 -2- Lakhwinder Singh was no more capable to perform his duties. Sometimes the petitioner had asked him to do proper work and not to consume the drugs at his fields. Due to this reason, son of the complainant also exchanged hot words with the petitioner. So, the petitioner said to the complainant that either do the work properly or to return back his balance money, which petitioner had paid as annual advance salary to the complainant. One day, the petitioner came to the house of the complainant and made complaint about his son. The petitioner had neither threatened nor abused the family of the complainant. Lateron, petitioner came to know that son of the complainant had consumed some intoxicant substance and died. In the above background, F.I.R was registered by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner and his son and some friends of his son on 10.11.2009 (Annexure P1).After registration of the F.I.R, the family members of the petitioner and others had made applications before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur to conduct an enquiry in this case as their names has been intentionally mentioned in the F.I.R with some ulterior motive. So, the thorough enquiry was conducted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur and had got recorded the statements of so many persons and found that except the petitioner no other person was related in this case and they were found to be totally innocent. However, during the pendency of investigation, the complainant itself inquired into the matter and found that present petitioner and others were not guilty in any way regarding the committing of suicide of his son. So, the complainant filed an affidavit to the effect that the petitioner is innocent and complainant does not want to initiate any action Crl. Misc.No. M-12346 of 2010 -3- against him. Copy of affidavit dated 24.04.2010 is annexed as Annexure P2. In the reply filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, Sangrur wherein it has been stated that Lakhwinder Singh (deceased) son of the complainant was doing job with petitioner since 20.05.2009 and was paid Rs.30,000/- per annum. He (compalainant's son) used to live day and night in the farm of the petitioner. On 08.11.2009, the petitioner came to his farm and started abusing complainant's son and also gave beatings with 'Tangli” to his son. His wife and younger son namely Amrit Pal Singh had rescued him from the petitioner. On 09.11.2009, when all family members of the complainant were present in their house, petitioner came on his motorcycle and abused son due to not coming on work. Thereafter Tejinder Singh (son of the petitioner) came along with his friends namely Sukhraj Singh s/o Chamkaur Singh, Iqbal Singh s/o Bachhan Singh and Amit Bansal s/o Darshan bansal residents of Nabha threatened to kill son of the complainant. After hearing the noise raised by son of the petitioner, people of their locality gathered there and Balkar Singh Sarpanch of village Bimbar also came there and while on seeing all the persons who had gathered there, all the above said persons fled away from the spot and left their motorcycle over there. Due to all this, complainant's son had consumed some poisonous due to fear and harassment, due to which he died. So, the complainant has perused this F.I.R and has made applications that the accused may be arrested. The police had conducted raids to arrest the petitioner but he was evading his arrest and was still absconding. At this stage, petitioner has entered into compromise (Annexure P3) with the complainant. As per the compromise, both the parties have realized their mistake and in future no party will raise any issue. In lieu of the salary Crl. Misc.No. M-12346 of 2010 -4- which was paid to the son of the complainant, the complainant had agreed to to to do work for his deceased son. In compliance of order dated 12.01.2011, report from Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur has been received. As per this report, on 15.02.2011 complainant had appeared before the Court and made statement that he entered into compromise with the petitioner and further stated that petitioner was innocent and complainant does not want to pursue further against the accused. Gurmail Kaur wife of the complainant was also present and she has made similar statement. In view of the statements of the complainants, the compromise is held to be valid. This Court in a case of Pinki and others vs. State of Punjab and others in Crl. Misc. No. M-25662 of 2010 decided on 22.12.2010 had examined a case under Section 306 in which compromise has been effected. This was a case in which complainant-husband was alleged to have have been blackmailed by the petitioners Pinki (petitioner No. 1) in collusion with Rahul (petitioner No. 3) and Sham Lal @ Shammi (petitioner No. 2) to do wrong acts with petitioner No. 1. It is because of this torture by the above said persons that her husband was constrained to take poisonous substance and he died. F.I.R was registered and during investigation, the complainant gave an affidavit that she had got registered the FIR against the petitioners and it was further stated by her that when her husband died, she was under a shock and therefore, got registered the FIR against the petitioners as she had lost control of her temper besides there was some misunderstanding. In fact, the petitioners were not responsible for the death of her husband and they were not guilty. She had further stated that she does not want to further proceed with the case. No challan had been Crl. Misc.No. M-12346 of 2010 -5- presented in the case. The F.I.R was quashed. In Ashwani Kumar v. State of Punjab and another, 2008(1) RCR (Crl.) 1034 (P&H), the case was registered under Section 306 and 511 IPC, it was held that once the matter has been compromised between the parties, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding with the prosecution case and the FIR was quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the judgment in a case of Chand Singh and others v. State of Haryana, 1996 (1) RCR Crl. 123 in which the case has been registered under Section 306 of IPC wherein complainant had filed an affidavit that he has filed the F.I.R under some wrong impression and misunderstanding, that the matter has been compromised at the intervention of some respectables, and that the misunderstanding has been removed. It has further been stated that he does not want to proceed with the case further. In view of this affidavit, F.I.R was quashed. Broad guidelines have been laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 for quashing the prosecution when parties entered into compromise. The Full Bench has observed that this power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- “26. In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, (1980)1 SCC 63, Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the essence of compromise in the following words :- “The finest hour of justice arrived propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of Crl. Misc.No. M-12346 of 2010 -6- reunion.” 27. The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted by distorted perceptions and is not a slave to anything, except to the caution and circumspection, the standards of which the Court sets before it, in exercise of such plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it while donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of justice. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) if the Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 28. The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social emity and reduces friction, then it truly is finest hour of justice”. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation.” The ratio of the Full Bench judgment is a special reference Crl. Misc.No. M-12346 of 2010 -7- which has been made to the offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide where the victim dies in the course of transaction would fall in the category where compounding may not be permitted. Heinous offences like highway robbery, dacoity or a case involving clear- cut allegations of rape should also fall in the prohibited category. However, the offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide may be permitted to be compounded when the Court is in the position to record a finding that the settlement between the parties is voluntary and fair. The Court must examine the cases of weaker and vulnerable victims with necessary caution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429 has examined a case where quashing was sought of an FIR under Section 406 IPC being non-compoundable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :- “1. No useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise – There was no possibility of conviction. 2 It is advisable that in the disputes where question involved is of purely personal nature and no public policy is involved – Court should ordinarily accept the compromise. 3. Keeping the matter alive with no possibility of conviction is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford.” In the present case, Lakhvinder Singh (deceased) was doing job with petitioner since 20.05.2009 and was paid Rs.30,000/- per annum by Crl. Misc.No. M-12346 of 2010 -8- him. He was a drug addict and was not doing his work efficiently. Complainant has compromised the matter with the petitioner and has agreed to do the work for the remaining amount which was due on his deceased son. In view of the above compromise, it appears that complainant has no grudge against the petitioner. The mere fact that the complainant has agreed to work for the petitioner in lieu of the salary received by his son goes to show that complainant has entered into compromise without any pressure and therefore, compromise is held to be genuine. Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (supra) and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), FIR No.218 dated 10.11.2009 (Annexure P-1) under Section 306 of IPC, registered at Police Station Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. Petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE April 01, 2011 G.Arora