Crl. Misc. No. M-19484 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-19484 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision :4.3.2011 Gurpreet Singh .......... petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present : Mr. G.S. Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Munish Kumar, AAG, Punjab. Mr. S.S. Chadha, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** RITU BAHRI, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 286 dated 28.5.2010, under Sections 309, 304-A IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Patiala and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. The allegations in the FIR by respondent No.2 are that brother of the complainant Paramjit Singh alias Pammi was studying in M.A. Part II History at Punjabi University Patiala, had left his house on 20.5.2010 for studying at Punjabi University, but he did not return home till night. He received a phone call from his friend Charanpreet Crl. Misc. No. M-19484 of 2010 -2- Singh at 12:30 A.M. The information was given that his brother Paramjit Singh has died due to drowing in Bhakhra Canal. Then he along with his relatives came to Bhakhra and search Paramjit Singh. They tried to find him towards Bhakra but due to darkness they could not find anything. On 23.5.2010 they found the dead body of this brother Paramjit Singh from Bhakhra canal little ahead of Khanaur near Khokhar Bridge and admitted him the Rajindra Hospital. He came to know that on 20.5.2010 at night his brother along with Gurpreet Singh son of Shamsher Singh went to stroll at Bhakhra on his car swift bearing No. PB-04-L-0970. Dead body of his brother was having mark of injuries on forehead, back of neck and whole of the body. He doubted that Gurpeet Singh himself or with the help of his accomplices had inflicted injuries and thrown into the canal. In view of the above facts, the complainant got an FIR registered against Gurpreet Singh, who had accompanied him to Bhakhra canal on the fateful day i.e. 20.5.2010. During the investigation, as is evident from the reply filed by the State, annexed with the petition, it has been mentioned that Gurpreet Singh had jumped into the canal and the apparent reason for jumping into the canal was some misunderstanding between his friend Harpreet Kaur. Gurpreet Singh was not nursing any grudge against Paramjit Singh and Paramjit Singh died as he did not know how to swim. The offence under Section 309, 304-A IPC are not compoundable. In the present facts of the case, the complainant is satisfied that Paramjit Singh died due to drowning and Gurpeet Singh Crl. Misc. No. M-19484 of 2010 -3- is not at fault in this incident, who tried to save his life. Original compromise, duly signed by the petitioner and the complainant along with their photographs has been annexed with the petition. They are present in the Court and have been duly identified by their respective counsel. 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. Crl. Misc. No. M-19484 of 2010 -4- 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, 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-19484 of 2010 -5- 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 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.” Keeping in view the status report, this Court has no hesitation to quash the FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Crl. Misc. No. M-19484 of 2010 -6- 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. 286 dated 28.5.2010, under Sections 309, 304-A IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Patiala and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom is quashed on the basis of compromise. The petition stands disposed of. 4.3.2011 (RITU BAHRI) 'sp' JUDGE