Criminal Misc. No. M-33628 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-33628 of 2010 Date of decision:-22.3.2011 Jujhar Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Amit Kohar, Advocate for respondent No.2-complainant. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 37 dated 20.5.1995 under Sections 324,323,148 and 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Samrala, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise. As per FIR, on 20.5.1995 complainant alongwith his Kamal Deep Singh son of Malkiat Singh and Nagar Singh son of Amar Singh was returning after exam of General Punjabi from Khamanon to Malwa Khalsa College, Bondli on Van No. DL-1C-D/8565. When they reached at Village Dayalpura at about 9.15, one Gypsy of white colour was standing on the GT road in which Lovely son of Gurcharan, Commission Agent of Samrala, Dimple son of Master of Badla, Amit son of owner of Parkash Boot House, Inderpreet son of Pritpal, Professor and Jujhar Singh (petitioner) of Poonia were present and in a blue colour Van, Criminal Misc. No. M-33628 of 2010 -2- Geja brother of Gurdeep of Libra of Madpur, Kaddu of Madpur and some other persons, who were not know to the complainant were present. After seeing them complainant and others turned their van towards Village Dayalpura. When they reached at the phirni of Village Dayalpura on the southern side then the abovesaid Gypsy stopped their way. Thereafter, all the persons sitting in that Gypsy after raising Lalkara by Lovely that the complainant etc. should not be spared because of teasing the girls and they started giving beatings to them with their respective weapons, which they were carrying in their hands. After gathering the villagers there, the accused persons ran away. Complainant disclosed that this scuffle was the result of a fight, which was took place few days earlier to this occurrence and the matter was compromised with the intervention of the Principal. In this background, present FIR was registered against the petitioner. In the above mentioned FIR challan had been presented and charged have also been framed against eight persons under Sections 324,323,148,149 and 427 IPC. The complainant and other witnesses anmely Manjit Singh and Kamaldeep Singh did not support the prosecution case after stepping into the witness box. Vide judgment dated 14.3.2000 the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samrala acquitted the aforesaid Amit Kumar, Inderpreet Singh, Devinder Singh, Sukhbir Singh and Gurdeep Singh in the trial arises out of the said FIR. Jujhar Singh son of Shamsher Singh had been declared proclaimed offender on 31.1.1997. The petitioner is seeking quashing of this FIR on the basis of that all the accused, who had been charged, have been since been acquitted vide judgment dated 14.3.2000 as the complainant and other witnesses have not supported the version of the prosecution. Since the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender, he was given an opportunity to appear before the trial Court and submit his bail bonds to Criminal Misc. No. M-33628 of 2010 -3- the satisfaction of the Court. In compliance of order dated 15.2.2011 the petitioner had appeared before the trial Court and he was admitted to bail vide order dated 3.3.2011 subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount and on furnishing of proper identification proof of sureties as well as proof regarding permanent residence of the accused. The petitioner has submitted his bail bonds and surety bonds in compliance of order of the trial Court, copy of which are taken on record as Annexure A-1. Counsel for the complainant has also filed an affidavit, in which the complainant states that Jujhar Singh son of Shamsher Singh was not involved in the commission of alleged crime. He has admitted that all the other accused have been acquitted in the trial arising out of the said FIR on 14.3.2000. Complainant has no objection if the aforesaid FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom against accused Jhujhar Singh are quashed. Further stated that in the affidavit dated 27.9.2010, which has been filed with the petition has been given by him. Original affidavit of complainant is taken on record as Annexure A-2. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-33628 of 2010 -4- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-33628 of 2010 -5- 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 fact that all the accused have been acquitted by the trial Court in the FIR in question, then this Court has no hesitation to quash the FIR No. 37 dated 20.5.1995 qua the present petitioner in the interest of justice and 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. 37 dated 20.5.1995 Criminal Misc. No. M-33628 of 2010 -6- under Sections 324,323,148 and 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Samrala, District Ludhiana, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. March 22, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE