Crl. Misc. No. M-35469 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-35469 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.05.2011 Sukhchain Singh and others ......Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Gopal Singh Nahel, Advocate for the petitioners. Sh. Guninder S. Brar, A.A.G., Punjab for respondent No. 1-State **** 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.60 dated 17.09.2010 under Sections 365, 342, 323, 506, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the Code') registered at Police Station Malerkotla, District Sangrur and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). Brief facts of the case are that the above FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2. On 16.09.2010, the complainant and Amritpal Singh on their vehicle, Jeep No. 7774 were going to Malerkotla for taking the television but it was not yet repaired. So they went to Jamalpur for ride, then Sukhchain Singh, Balwinder Singh and Surinder Singh came in a Alto vehicle No. PB 13 W 0665, black colored and there were 7/8 more boys on two motorcycles along with them came to them. All these persons gave beating to the complainant. In the above background, Crl. Misc. No. M-35469 of 2010 (O&M) -2- FIR was registered against the petitioners. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was pending but the parties have compromised the matter, vide Annexure P2. The parties have compromised the matter with the accused with the intervention of respectable persons and some relatives. Now complainant wants to cancel the above said case. The complainant shall be liable for the responsibilities which are required to be performed for the cancellation of this case. The complainant will not take action of any type in the above said case against the accused. Both the parties have further agreed that they will reside jointly with their mutual liaison and the bad intentions of the parties against each other has been removed. They have further agreed that they do not want to encourage the bad intention of any type in future. In compliance of order dated 03.12.2010, the parties were directed to appear before the Area Magistrate for recording of their statements. Report of Sub Div. Judicial Magistrate, Malerkotla has been received in this regard. As per this report, statements of complainant and accused were recorded, in which they have stated that they have compromised the matter in dispute. The original statements of the complainant and accused along with photocopy of the compromise dated 19.11.2010 are also sent by the Sub Div. Judicial Magistrate, Malerkotla . As per statement of the complainant, matter in dispute has been compromised with the petitioners. The photocopy of compromise is Ex.CX and the complainant has no objection if the FIR is quashed and the quashing petition filed by the accused before this Court is accepted. Statement of the accused is also to the same effect. Original compromise is also taken on record as Annexure A-1 Crl. Misc. No. M-35469 of 2010 (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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-35469 of 2010 (O&M) -4- 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-35469 of 2010 (O&M) -5- 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), FIR No.60 dated 17.09.2010 under Sections 365, 342, 323, 506, 148 and 149 of the Code registered at Police Station Malerkotla is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 17, 2011 G.Arora