Crl. Misc.No. M- 23739 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc.No. M- 23739 of 2010 Date of decision : 27.04.2011 Joginder Singh and another ......Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Tejinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab for respondent No. 1 Mr. Mandeep Kumar, Advocate for the complainant/respondent No. 2 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.110 dated 10.10.2007 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 323, 324, 452, 148, 149 of IPC, registered at Police Station Rahon , District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (Nawanshahar), Punjab and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 01.07.2010 (Annexure P2). Brief facts of the case are that as per the F.I.R, on 03.10.2007 at about 7 P.M., the complainant alongwith his nephew Sukhwinder Singh and Khushwinder Singh was sitting in the Courtyard of their house and they were taking to each other. In the meanwhile, Harmohan Singh, Snehpal, Satnam Singh, Joginder Singh, Varinder Singh and Gurpreet Singh armed Crl. Misc.No. M- 23739 of 2010 -2- with lathis and swords forcibly entered into the complainant house. On coming there, Joginder Singh-accused said that complainant be caught and he be taught a lesson for stopping trallies. Upon this, Snehpal-accused gave a kirpan blow on the complainant and he raised his right hand to save himself but it landed on the little finger of his hand. Satnam Singh-accused gave a lathi blow which hit on the complainant right hand and he fell down on the ground. When the complainant was lying down, his nephew Khushwinder Singh and Sukhwinder Singh tried to save the complainant but the accused also inflicted injuries on them. Thereafter, all the accused ran away from the spot with their respective weapons. After this, the complainant and his nephew were got admitted in the Civil Hospital, Nawanshahar. The complainant further alleged that the reason behind this grudge is that the accused trallies loaded with soil used to pass near the school which has an adverse effect on the education of the students and the complainant refrained from doing so. In the above background, F.I.R was registered by respondent No. 2 against the petitioners. However, during the pendency of investigation, both the parties arrived at a compromise with the intervention of the area (Annexure P2). An affidavit of the complainant is also on record (Annexure P3). Joint affidavit of petitioners is also on record (Annexure P4) As per the compromise, affidavit of the complainant and affidavit of the petitioners, compromise has been affected between the parties and the matter has been resolved amicably and all differences has been settled. It has further been agreed that no damages whatsoever of any kind would be claimed by both the parties against each other. It has further been agreed that both the parties would abide by the compromise and the Crl. Misc.No. M- 23739 of 2010 -3- complainant has no objection if the above said F.I.R is quashed. In the reply filed by the Superintendent of Police, Operation, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, it was stated that an enquiry was conducted by Narinder Bedi, DSP (Detective), Nawanshahar, who vide his enquiry report dated 31.12.2007 (Annexure R-1) came to the conclusion that no such alleged occurrence had taken place in the house of any of the party nor any person had sustained any injury nor any person was armed with weapons and due to party fiction and in order to led down each other they self suffered injuries and, as such, the cross-version vide the above said F.I.R was got registered falsely. On the basis of the said enquiry findings, cancellation report was prepared on 22.01.2008 (Annexure R2) and the same is being submitted in the Court for approval after exhausting departmental channel. In compliance of the order dated 03.02.2011, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court and get their statements recorded. As per the report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, S.B.S Nagar, both parties appeared before the Court and made their statements in which they have admitted the factum of compromise with each other. They have stated that the matter has been compromised with the intervention of the Panchayat and they have no grudge against each other now. The complainant has further no objection if the above said F.I.R is quashed against the petitioners. The complainant has further identified his signatures on the compromise (Ex.CI) The said compromise was effected without any threat or pressure. The complainant has also admitted the affidavit (Ex.C2) to be correct. From the statements of both the parties, the compromise appears to be volunteer. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further informed this Crl. Misc.No. M- 23739 of 2010 -4- Court that FIR had been registered against the six accused and the complainant has compromised with only two accused. This Court in the case of Parambir Singh Gill v. Malkiat Kaur RCR (Crl) 2010(1) 256 has observed : “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 powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C” 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 Crl. Misc.No. M- 23739 of 2010 -5- 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 Crl. Misc.No. M- 23739 of 2010 -6- 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) 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 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (supra), the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Crl. Misc.No. M- 23739 of 2010 -7- Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (supra) and law laid down by this Court in the case of Parambir Singh Gill v. Malkiat Kaur (supra), FIR No.110 dated 10.10.2007 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 323, 324, 452, 148, 149 of IPC, registered at Police Station Rahon , District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (Nawanshahar), Punjab is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE April 27, 2011 G.Arora