Crl. Misc. No. M-1704 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-1704 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision :15.3.2011 Swaran Singh & others .......... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents **** Crl. Misc. No. M-1679 of 2011 (O&M) Amarjit Singh & others .......... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present : Mr. Navjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. S.P.S. Dhillon, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** RITU BAHRI, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 3 dated 4.1.2006 under Sections 323, 324, 506, Crl. Misc. No. M-1704 of 2011 -2- 148, 149 IPC registered at Police Station Dakha, District Jagraon and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). As per the FIR, the complainant and his wife stayed in the house made by Nirmal Singh son of Harinder Singh. A litigation is going on between Swaran Singh and his sister-in-law Balwinder Kaur wife of late Nirmal Singh, who had a joint Khata over the property. On 3.1.2006, the complainant Amarjit Singh was ploughing his fields and let out water supply in it. Swaran Singh etc. forcibly started digging in their land. Swaran Singh raised a Lalkara and started attacking the petitioner. Petitioner was given beatings by Vicky Fauji, who was carrying a Dasti sword. The complainant's nephew Harinder Singh was hit by Kala Fauji. In the above background, the FIR had been registered. During the pendency of the trial a compromise has been effected between the parties on 19.5.2010 Annexure P-2. The original compromise has been placed on record as Annexure A-1. As per the contents of the compromise, all the complainants with the intervention of the Panchayat have agreed to compromise the matter. The trial is pending before the Court of Sub Judge Sh. Raman Kumar JMIC, Ludhiana. The parties have resolved their grudge against each other and have agreed to get the pending FIR quashed by giving their statements. Learned counsel for the petitioners states the parties have compromised the matter with the intervention of the respectables of the village and the society on 19.5.2010 (Annexure P-2. The trial is at the stage of recording of evidence. The original Crl. Misc. No. M-1704 of 2011 -3- compromise is taken on record as Annexure A-1. In compliance of the order dated 19.1.2011 passed by this Court, report from the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana has been received. The report submitted by the learned trial Court reads as under :- “.......statement of parties recorded. Complainant / injured Amarjit Singh alongwith his counsel got recorded his statement to the effect that he has compromised the matter with accused Swaran Singh, Balwinder Singh and Devinder Singh, with his own free will and he has no ill will against them. Accused Sukhdev Singh has already died and he has no objection if the present case may be cancelled. Injured / eye witness Balwinder Kuar on her behalf and on behalf of her son Harinder Singh being his power of attorney also got recorded her statement to the effect that Harinder Singh her son is also witness in this case. They have compromised the matter with accused Swaran Singh, Balwinder Singh and Devinder Singh with their own free will and they have no ill will against the accused. She further stated that accused Sukhdev Singh has already died and they have no objection if the present case may be cancelled. Similarly, accused Devinder Singh and Balwinder Singh along with their counsel suffered a compromise. Crl. Misc. No. M-1704 of 2011 -4- Statement of complainant and injured Balwinder Kaur and same are correct. In view of the statements suffered by complainant as well as accused, it appears that parties had arrived at a valid compromise.” As per this report, statements of complainant / injured eye witness Balwinder Kaur. Amarjit Singh along with his counsel were got recorded that he has compromised the matter with accused Swaran Singh, Balwinder Singh and Devinder Singh with his own free will and he has no ill will against them. Accused Sukhdev Singh has already died and Amarjit Singh has no objection if the present case is cancelled. Similarly, accused Amarjit Singh son of Mohinder Singh and Balwinder Kaur wife of Amarjit Singh on her behalf and on behalf of Harinder Singh being his power of attorney along with their counsel suffered a statement to the effect that they have heard the statement of complainant and same is correct. They have no objection if the aforesaid FIR and the cross version and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-1704 of 2011 -5- 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 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 amity and reduces friction, then it truly is finest hour of justice”. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, Crl. Misc. No. M-1704 of 2011 -6- 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 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 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) R.C.R. (Criminal) 429. has examined a case where quashing was sought of an FIR under Section 406 IPC being non-compoundable. The Hon'ble Supreme Crl. Misc. No. M-1704 of 2011 -7- 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 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 a re, cannot afford.” This Court in the case of Parambir Singh Gill Vs. Malkiat Kaur 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 256, has been pleased to lay down as under :- “Criminal Procedure Code, Section 320- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sections 3 and 4- Non Compoundable offence- of the seven accused, complainant entering into compromise with one accused- Proceedings qua one accused only quashed by High Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.” Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (supra), Parambir Singh Gill Vs. Malkiat Kaur (supra) and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another Crl. Misc. No. M-1704 of 2011 -8- (supra), FIR No. 3 dated 4.1.2006 under Sections 323, 324, 506, 148, 149 IPC registered at Police Station Dakha, District Jagraon, the cross version and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise is quashed qua petitioners. The petitions stand disposed of. 15.3.2011 (RITU BAHRI) 'sp' JUDGE