Criminal Misc. No. M- 30280 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 30280 of 2010 Date of decision:- 18.03.2011 Raj Kumar and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S. Virk, DAG Haryana for respondent No.1-State. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.51 dated 16.2.2006 under Sections 323,324,325,148 and 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Agroha, District Hisar (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). As per FIR, on 15.2.2006 at about 10 PM when complainant-Mani Ram alongwith Dalbir and Partap were sitting in the shop, then Ram Kumar son of Chander Bhan, Jagdish son of Chander, Shishu son of Mohar Singh, Mahipal son of Mohar Singh alongwith weapons in their hands came there and Shishu inflicted gandassi blow on left side of ear of complainant and Rajender, who was having gandassi gave a blow on the head of complainant. Then Mahipal, inflicted sword blow on the head of complainant and Jagdish also gave a lathi blow on right leg. Then Rajender son of Ramji Lal, Ramesh son of Ramji Lal, Sunil son of Ram Kumar and Narender son of Jagdish came at the spot and they were also armed with lathis and gave lathi blow to complainant and others, who were sitting with him. After that Gajender son of Jagdish, Balbir son of Kanwar Lal Criminal Misc. No. M- 30280 of 2010 -2- and Shishu son of Balbir came at the spot and they also inflicted injuries to complainant and his sons Dalbir and Partap. In this background, the present FIR was registered against the petitioners. During pendency of trial, parties have entered into compromise. In compliance of order dated 12.10.2010, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hisar has sent a report verifying the contents of the compromise. As per this report, on 09.11.2010, complainant Mani Ram appeared in the Court and stated that in the Biradri Panchayat of village he had compromised the matter with the accused-petitioners and now both the parties are living happily in the village. He further stated that he and his sons gave affidavits with regard to this compromise to the accused persons. He further stated that the accused have filed petition for quashing the FIR in question before the High Court and he has no objection in quashing the present case qua petitioners. After recording the statements of the parties, the compromise is held to be genuine. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 30280 of 2010 -3- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 30280 of 2010 -4- 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 Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), FIR No.51 dated 16.2.2006 under Sections 323,324,325,148 and 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Agroha, District Hisar, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. ` March 18, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE