Crl. Misc. No. M-3203 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-3203 of 2011 Date of decision : 21.04.2011 Sukhwinder Singh and others ......Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Suresh Kumar Aneja, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder Singh Brar, AAG, Punjab for respondent No. 1-State **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of criminal complaint No. 1054-1 dated 10.10.2003 (Annexure P-2) under Sections 307, 323, 324, 364, 148, 149 of IPC filed in the Court of JMIC, Fazilka and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 13.12.2010 (Annexure P-3), entered between the parties. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner No. 2 got lodged the FIR No227 dated 07.07.2003 under Sections 324, 323, 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Fazilka against one Rattan Singh, since deceased Surjan Singh as well as Raj Singh alias Raju son of Gurdial Singh and Joginder Singh son of Milkha Singh on the allegations that on 05.07.2003, petitioner No's 2. son Sukhjinder had gone to the shop of Rattan Singh s/o Surjan Singh in the village for cutting his hair who in return spoke badly as Crl. Misc. No. M-3203 of 2011 -2- a result of which, there was exchange of some hot words between them but the matter was got compromised but on the next date, petitioner No. 2 and her son Sukhjinder Singh were returning back to their house after paying fits to Peer baba of Burjawali Karni. At about 6 P.M., Rattan Singh, Joginder armed with Gandasi, Raj Singh were standing there in the way and Rattan Singh and Raj Singh raised lalkara and Joginder Singh caused gandasi blow on the head of Sukhjinder Singh which hit him on the left side of his head from the back side and he fall down and raised raula and the accused ran from the race of occurrence with their weapons. In the above background, F.I.R was registered against the petitioners. Thereafter, Rattan Singh (since deceased) son of respondent No. 2 filed the above said criminal complainant against the petitioners. In the said complaint, the accused including petitioner No. 2 were ordered to be summoned under Sections 323, 324, 148, 149 IPC. The proceedings are going on before the learned trial Court. Rattan Singh had already expired. The petitioners as well as respondent No. 2 had no previous enmity and the said incident took place due to some mis-understanding. However, with the passage of time, better sense prevailed upon both the parties and hence due to intervention of Gram Panchayat, respectable members of village, friends and relatives of both the parties, the parties have compromised the matter (Annexure P3). The original compromise filed in the Court today and the same is taken on record as Annexure A-1. As per the compromise, with the intervention of Gram Panchayat, respectable members of village, friends and relatives of both the parties, the parties have compromised the matter. Both the parties have now no grouse or grievances against each others and respondent No. 2 do not want to prosecute the petitioners and he has no Crl. Misc. No. M-3203 of 2011 -3- objection if the complaint as well as subsequent proceedings are quashed against the petitioners. In compliance of order dated 02.02.2011, Civil Judge (Jr. Divn) Fazilka has sent the status report. As per the report, the complainant Rattan Singh has since died and the deceased complainant has been pursued through his father Surjan Singh who had appeared in the Court on 25.02.2011 along with his respective counsel. It is further submitted that complainant was duly identified by Sh. Karamjit Singh Sandhu, Advocate in the Court vide his separate statement. On the other hand, the petitioners also appeared in the Court and were duly identified by Sh. Sanjeev Kamboj, Advocate. The statement of both the parties were recorded on 25.02.2011, in order to ascertain the validity or otherwise of the compromise dated 13.12.2010 (Annexure P3). The complainant/injured has stated that the present case was registered on her son's statement against the petitioners in the Court of JMIC, Fazilka and with the intervention of Gram Panchayat, respectable members of village, friends and relatives of both the parties have compromised the matter (Annexure P3). Now complainant does not want to proceed further with the present case as per compromise. He has further stated that he has effected compromise for the betterment of his family and brotherhood without any pressure with her freewill. The petitioners has also made similar statement admitting the correctness of the compromise (Annexure P3) and they have stated that they have effected compromise with the complainant for the betterment of his family and brotherhood without any pressure with her freewill and that they are agreed with the compromise earlier filed before this Court and they does not want to proceed further with the present case. On the other hand, both the accused Crl. Misc. No. M-3203 of 2011 -4- persons along with their counsel have admitted the correctness of compromise. After considering the statement made by both the parties, the Court is satisfied with the compromise entered between the parties. So, the compromise is held to be voluntarily, valid and legal. 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-3203 of 2011 -5- 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 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. Crl. Misc. No. M-3203 of 2011 -6- 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 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), criminal complaint No. 1054-1 dated 10.10.2003 (Annexure P-2) under Sections 307, 323, 324, 364, 148, 149 of IPC filed in the Court of JMIC, Fazilka is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE April 21, 2011 G.Arora