Criminal Misc. No. M- 28556 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 28556 of 2009 (O & M) Date of decision:-11.05.2011 Ishwar Verma and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG Haryana. Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for respondent No.2. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) Crl. Misc. Nos.61328 of 2009 & 19659 of 2011 Allowed as prayed for. Registry is directed to make necessary incorporations in the petition as prayed for. Disposed of. Crl. Misc. No. M-28556 of 2009 The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.297 dated 15.5.2009 under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, registered at Police Station City, Jind (Annexure P-5) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-10). On 28.1.2006 all the accused had gone to the house of complainant Sanjay Kapoor and threatened the complainant and his father that their daughter Criminal Misc. No. M- 28556 of 2009 -2- had solemnized the marriage with their nephew Gaurav son of Ved Parkash. On this complainant's father gave a complaint in the police station. On 31.1.2006 when the complainant was going on his motor bike then a white coloured maruti 800 car started following him. This car was being driven by Deepak Verma son- in-law of Ishwar. Anand, Sanej, Vinod and one other person were sitting in the car. When the complainant reached near Raj Sheller, all the accused in the car came at a high speed and hit his motor-cycle. Complainant was thrown 6-7 feet high and fell on the katcha path. The bike fell into the drain. He received many injuries. Thereafter, Vinod came out from the car and dragged the complainant towards the car and stated that they wanted to teach him a lesson for the marriage between Reena and Gaurav. In the meantime, a police zypsy came and a police man Rajender Kumar alighted from it. Tea vendor Dinesh and one another person Madan Lal came running. At this all the accused sitted in the car ran away. The complainant was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Jind. It is pertinent to mention here that during the course of investigation, Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC was added. In the above background the FIR was registered. After investigation the challan was presented. During the course of investigation Darshan Lal son of Gulab was found innocent and kept in column No.2. Charges were framed on 30.11.2010 vide Annexure P-9. However, with the intervention of respectable and friends a compromise dated 16.3.2011 has been effected between the parties (Annexure P-10). Affidavits of Sanjay Kapoor and Om Parkash dated 25.3.2011 are Annexures P-11 and P-12. After going through the facts of the case one thing is clear that there was no previous enmity between the accused and complainant. It was on account of marriage of Reema and Gaurav that there was an element of anger existing between the parties, which led to unfortunate incident in which all the Criminal Misc. No. M- 28556 of 2009 -3- accused hit the complainant while he was driving his motor-cycle. Even though the petitioner has alleged that there was an attempt to kill him. Keeping in view that the parties are related to each other on account of marriage of their cousin Reema and Gaurav, in the larger interest that a compromise has been effected between the parties so that the permanent peace be prevailed in the family. The offence under Section 307 IPC is non-compoundable but keeping in view the facts of the present case this Court is of the view that the injuries suffered by the petitioner were not grievous and offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out. After going through the compromise deed and affidavits filed by the complainant Sanjay Kapoor and Om Parkash, this Court is of the view that the compromise effected between the parties is valid and genuine and the Court has no hesitation to quash the FIR with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 28556 of 2009 -4- 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 when the Court is in the position to record a finding that the settlement between Criminal Misc. No. M- 28556 of 2009 -5- 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 the compromise deed and affidavits filed by the complainant Sanjay Kapoor and Om Parkash and 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.297 dated 15.5.2009 under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, registered at Police Station City, Jind, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. May 11, 2010 ( RITU BAHRI ) dinesh / Vijay Asija JUDGE