Crl. Misc. No. M-3296 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-3296 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.04.2011 Gopal Singh and others ......Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. J.S. Jaidka, 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 F.I.R No. 227 dated 13.12.2009 under Sections 323, 324, 326, 511, 447, 34 of IPC registered at Police Station, Sahnewal and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise deed dated 12.01.2011 (Annexure P-1), entered between the parties. Brief facts of the case are that as per F.IR., on 28.11.2009, when complainant and his brother Bhajan Singh were going towards the field to round at about 9.30 A.M, Gopal Singh, Manjit Singh, Gurmukh Singh were making an embankment on their land. Thereafter, the complainant and Bhajan Singh stopped the accused and they pounced upon them. Manjit Singh-accused hit the brother of the complainant with a stick on the right leg and raised a lalkara that they must not be let to go now and they must be taught a lesson for stopping them from making an embankment on the land. Crl. Misc. No. M-3296 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Thereafter, Gurmukh Singh-accused with the “Dah” in his hand gave a blow on the head of Lakha Singh-complainant. While saving himself, the “Dah” hit the little finger of the complainant right hand then Gopal Singh-accused hit on the right knee of the complainant with a stick and Gursewak Singh- accused with a kirpan in his hand gave a blow to Bhajjan Singh- complainant on his right arm, which hit the complainant near the elbow. Due to being hurt, the complainant fell down and raised a raula of “Marta Marta”. On seeking them being beaten up, Gurdeep Singh who was coming back from village Nattan came running and save them from the accused. Angrej Singh and Gurmej Singh also came there and put the complainant and his brother brother in a vehicle and got them admitted to Civil Hospital, Sahnewal for treatment. The dispute arose between the parties as the accused were asking for the front portion of the complainant's land. In the above background, F.I.R was registered against the petitioners. After investigation, the challan has been prepared. During the pendency of the trial, the matter has been compromised between the parties (Annexure P1). The original compromise filed in the Court today is taken on record as Annexure A-1. As per compromise, both the parties belong to same area and have many common associate and friends. Therefore, with the intervention of respectables of elders of the area and through good office of common friends, both the parties have amicably resolved their disputes. The complainant has further no objection, if the F.IR. in question is quashed against the petitioners. The complainant does not want to pursue any legal proceedings of any nature against the petitioners. The compromise is without any pressure. On notice, a reply has been filed by Assistant Commissioner of Crl. Misc. No. M-3296 of 2011 (O&M) -3- Police, Sahnewal, District Ludhiana. As per the report, challan was presented before the learned trial Court on 21.01.2011 but charge has not been framed as yet and now the case is pending in the Court of learned JMIC, Ludhiana and is fixed for 29.03.2011 for framing of charges. In compliance of order dated 02.02.2011, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana has sent the status report. As per the report, the statements of both the parties have been recorded in order to ascertain the validity or otherwise of the compromise dated 12.01.2011 (Annexure P1). It is further submitted that complainants were duly identified by Sh. Vipin Saggar, Advocate. On the other hand, the petitioners also appeared in the Court and were duly identified by Sh. Harvinder Singh, Advocate. As per the joint statement of the accused, they have admitted the factum of compromise with the complainants/injured. 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.” Crl. Misc. No. M-3296 of 2011 (O&M) -4- 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 which has been made to the offences against human body other than murder Crl. Misc. No. M-3296 of 2011 (O&M) -5- 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 the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Crl. Misc. No. M-3296 of 2011 (O&M) -6- Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), F.I.R No. 227 dated 13.12.2009 under Sections 323, 324, 326, 511, 447, 34 of IPC registered at Police Station, Sahnewal is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. In view of the status report, the petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE April 21, 2011 G.Arora