Criminal Misc. No. M-53 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-53 of 2011 Date of decision:- 08.03.2011 Swaran Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. K.B.S. Mann, Advocate for respondent No.2. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 3 dated 07.1.2010 under Sections 436,427,506,149,457 and 380 IPC, registered at Police Station Baghapurana, District Moga (Annexure P-1 ) on the basis of compromise. The FIR was registered on the statement of Ajmer Singh, who is nephew of petitioner No.1-Swaran Singh. As per FIR petitioner No.1 is son of Hari Singh, brother of complainant and working at water works at Village Sivian. He used to reside with his children in Village Sivian. Later on he started living in village Smalsar. Complainant alongwith his brother Roop Singh used to reside in 9 marlas house in the Village. Later on Roop Singh sold his 4-½ marlas house to his nephew Boota Singh. About one year earlier to this Swaran Singh- petitioner No.1 purchased 4-½ marlas from Boota Singh son of Santa Singh and Criminal Misc. No. M-53 of 2011 -2- he constructed wall in the house. On 03.1.2010 at night, Swaran Singh and his sons Hardeep Singh and Harjit Singh and his wife Balwinder Kaur demolished the wall and threatened the complainant to leave the house. Later on, the matter was compromised with the intervention of Panchayat. Petitioner No.1 Swaran Singh agreed to construct the wall. Despite compromise, complainant used to sleep in the house of his nephew Boota Singh. On 06.1.2010 at about 11 PM petitioners came in front of house of Boota Singh on motor cycles with 'dangs' and started raising noises. The complainant recognized their voices to be of petitioners and after giving abuses and threats the petitioners went away. On the next day, when petitioner alongwith Boota Singh went to his house, he found that his bed and other articles were burnt with fire and lock of the box was found broken. On further checking, two gold rings and Rs.18,000/- cash was missing. With these allegations, present FIR was registered against the petitioners. Respondent No.2-Ajmer Singh filed his affidavit admitting the factum of compromise and stating that due to intervention of respectable and relatives, the matter has been compromised with the petitioners and now he is having no objection if the FIR in question with consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed qua petitioners. Respondent No.2-complainant is not present in the Court and he is 85 years old. The compromise is voluntarily and without any pressure. The dispute in this case is between very close family members and as per compromise (Annexure P-2), both the parties have settled the dispute amicably as per the conditions recorded in the compromise. Counsel for the respondent does not dispute the genuineness of the compromise (Annexure P-2) annexed with the petition. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-53 of 2011 -3- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-53 of 2011 -4- 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 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.” 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-53 of 2011 -5- 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. 3 dated 07.1.2010 under Sections 436,427,506,149,457 and 380 IPC, registered at Police Station Baghapurana, District Moga, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. March 08, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE