Crl. Misc. No. M-6905 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-6905 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 31.05.2011 Sukhdev Singh and others ......Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate for the petitioners. Sh. Guninder S. Brar, AAG, Punjab **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the impugned FIR No.11 dated 30.10.2008 under Sections 451/354/323 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the Code'), registered at Police Station Anandpur, District Rupanagar and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 03.10.2010 (Annexure P-2). Brief facts of the case are that the above FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2. On 28.10.2008, the complainant Crl. Misc. No. M-6905 of 2011 (O&M) -2- put crackers in front of her shop. At about 9-9.30 P.M, Malkiat Singh came at her shop and started fire works. She asked him not to do this. But he abused with words “Teri Dukan Bahan Di Tang Maraye” and further said that he will burn the crackers here. Thereafter, he caught hold of the complainant from her shirt in her shop and abused her and slapped her. Thereafter, the complainant raised noise then her sister in law “Darani” came but Malkiat Singh(deceased) gave blows to her also. In the above background, FIR was registered against the petitioners. However, during the pendency of the trial, the compromised has been effected between the parties in respect of altercation and the differences between them got removed. Now both the parties have no grudge against each other. This compromise has been effected without any fear and pressure by the Khangi In compliance of order dated 07.03.2011, the parties were directed to appear before the trial for recording of their statement. Report of Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Rupnagar as well as Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib have been received. As per these reports, statements of the parties have been recorded. As per the statement of the complainant, she has compromised the matter with the accused party and have no grudge Crl. Misc. No. M-6905 of 2011 (O&M) -3- against the accused. She has seen the compromise dated 03.10.2010 (Ex.AZ) which bears her signatures. Statement of Ram Gopal (husband of the complainant) has also been recorded to the effect that he and his wife has compromised the matter with all the accused and also with Juvenile Kuldip Singh. He has seen the compromise Ex.AZ which bears his signatures and his wife's signatures i.e complainant and the accused persons. His signatures are at mark-E. Statements of all the accused party have also been record to the same effect that the compromise has been effected between them. Statement of Malkiat Singh has not been recorded as he has since been died. From the statements made by the parties, the compromise appears to be genuine and voluntarily. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-6905 of 2011 (O&M) -4- 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-6905 of 2011 (O&M) -5- 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-6905 of 2011 (O&M) -6- 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 status report, compromise effected between the parties and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases 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.11 dated 30.10.2008 under Sections 451/354/323 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the Code'), registered at Police Station Anandpur, District Rupanagar, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 31, 2011 G.Arora