Crl. Misc. No. M-8508 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-8508 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 25.05.2011 Gurpinder Singh @ Pinder and others ......Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Sh. Guninder S. Brar, A.A.G., Punjab for respondent No. 1-State Mr. Ishwar Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR No.307 dated 14.12.2010 under Sections 395, 307, 148, 149, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the Code') and under Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Shahkot and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise Crl. Misc. No. M-8508 of 2011 (O&M) -2- vide affidavit dated 28.12.2010 (Annexure P-1). At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to order dated 10.02.2011 whereby the above said FIR was quashed qua Gurmukh Singh @ Gora only (who was one of the four accused mentioned in that FIR). Now he has sought quashing of FIR qua the other three accused, on the basis of compromise. Respondent No. 2-Lakhvir Singh appeared through counsel and admitted the factum of compromise and stating that with the respectables of area, the matter has compromised between them. Now he do not want any further action in the case got registered by him. He has further stated that he has no objection if the above said FIR is quashed against the above said accused also. The compromise is voluntarily and without any pressure. As per affidavit, both the parties have settled the dispute amicably. Learned State counsel on instructions from Head Constable Gurpal Singh informs the Court that during the investigation it has been found that no injuries were suffered by any person in the incident. In appropriate cases, FIR can be quashed on the basis of compromise by exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, even if the offences are not compoundable. Crl. Misc. No. M-8508 of 2011 (O&M) -3- 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-8508 of 2011 (O&M) -4- 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Crl. Misc. No. M-8508 of 2011 (O&M) -5- 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 affidavit of respondent No. 2 dated 28.12.2010 (Annexure P-1), in the interest of harmonious relations between the parties and in view of the 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) the present petition is accepted and FIR No.307 dated 14.12.2010 under Sections 395, 307, 148, 149, 506 of the Crl. Misc. No. M-8508 of 2011 (O&M) -6- Code and under Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Shahkot, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 25, 2011 G.Arora