Criminal Misc. No. M-10367 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-10367 of 2011 Date of decision:-03.6.2011 Shaktidhar Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No. 11 dated 28.1.2011 under Sections 307,324,323,506,148 and 149 IPC and under Section 25/27 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sangat, District Bathinda on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant- Amandeep Sharma son of Khet Ram. The complainant is running a medical store under the name and style of Guru Nanak Medical Hall. That on 28.1.2011 when complainant alongwith his father-Kheta Ram and Pardeep Sharma son of Sukhdev Sharma had gone to Dera to attend the barsi of Sants and standing at the gate of the dera then at about 11.30 AM a car bearing No. DL3CR 9735 and one closed body Gypsy came there and stopped. Out of which accused Daljit Singh son of Modan Singh armed with baseball, Sandeep Singh armed with Gandasa and Gurmeet Singh armed with hocky, Shaktidhar son of Janak Raj Criminal Misc. No. M-10367 of 2011 -2- armed with revolver 38 bore and other four unknown persons having baseball came down and fired on the complainant and others side but they escaped. Then the other accused caused injuries to them. On hearing their noise Buta Singh son of Gurjant Singh and Pardeep Sharma came running from Dera and tried to rescue them. Then they were also given beatings by the accused persons. Thereafter, all the accused ran away alongwith their weapons in their vehicles. About one month back the complainant had a quarrel with Gurmit Singh, Daljit Singh and Sandeep Singh at Bathinda and due to this, they had caused injuries. In the above background the FIR was registered. During the state of investigation the parties have entered into compromise (Annexure P-2). In compliance of order dated 06.4.2011 status report has been submitted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda. Statements of injured/eye witness Kheta Ram, Amandeep Sharma injured/complainant and Buta Singh another injured witness have been recorded. All these witnesses were identified by Gurbachan Singh member panchayat, whose statement was also recorded separately. All the witnesses have stated that comp9romise has been effected between them and accused Shaktidhar, Daljit Singh, Sandeep Singh and Gurmeet Singh with the intervention of respectables and relatives, which has been reduced into writing. All these witnesses have identified their signatures on compromise Ex.CX. After recording the statements of the parties the compromise is held to be genuine. 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. Criminal Misc. No. M-10367 of 2011 -3- 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 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.” Criminal Misc. No. M-10367 of 2011 -4- The ratio of the Full Bench judgment is a special reference which 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 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) 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. 11 Criminal Misc. No. M-10367 of 2011 -5- dated 28.1.2011 under Sections 307,324,323,506,148 and 149 IPC and under Section 25/27 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sangat, District Bathinda, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. June 03, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE