CRM No. M-6383 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-6383 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 23.2.2011 Sushma .......... petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present : Mr. H.S. Dhindsa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Munish Kumar, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Thakur Ashwani Verma, Advocate for respondent No.4. **** RITU BAHRI, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 43 dated 6.10.2009 under Sections 313 and 23/25 of Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act and 5(2)(3) of MTP Act, 1971 registered at Police Station Garhdiwala, District Hoshiarpur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. The allegation in the FIR is that respondent No.4 / complainant was having complication of bleeding and she was sick due to the bleeding. Her mother took her to the petitioner and due to CRM No. M-6383 of 2010 -2- complication of bleeding, abortion was conducted by the petitioner and as a result of which the complainant / respondent No.4 became unwell and was later on treated in Modern Hospital. Both the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 / complainant are residents of the same area. Due to the intervention of the families of both the parties, a compromise has been effected. On notice, reply has been filed by the State by way of affidavit of Harpreet Singh Sandhu, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub DivisionDasuya, Hoshiarpur, wherein it has been mentioned that challan was presented in the Court on 29.9.2010. The offence mentioned in the FIR is non-compoundable and the parties are not competent to compound the offences of the above mentioned FIR. Two affidavits have been filed by respondent No.4. First affidavit dated 10.4.2010, in which it has been mentioned that due to some misunderstanding the FIR was lodged in the police station. In the affidavit, which is dated 26.11.2010, it has been mentioned that the FIR was got registered without asking the deponent and due to communication gap and misunderstanding as the deponent was in semiconscious condition. It has been mentioned in the affidavit that petitoner had played no role as due to the heavy bleeding miscarriage had already taken place and she had only taken the deponent to hospital being a family friend. 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 CRM No. M-6383 of 2010 -3- 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 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 CRM No. M-6383 of 2010 -4- 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, 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 CRM No. M-6383 of 2010 -5- 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 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 has no hesitation to quash the FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. Consequently, in view of the 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 Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), FIR No. 43 dated 6.10.2009 under Sections 313 and 23/25 of Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and CRM No. M-6383 of 2010 -6- Prevention of Misuse) Act and 5(2)(3) of MTP Act, 1971 registered at Police Station Garhdiwala, District Hoshiarpur is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. 23.2.2011 (RITU BAHRI) 'sp' JUDGE