Crl. Misc. No. M-4471 of 2011 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-4471 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision : 11.5.2011 Krishan Ram @ Krishan Lal and another ......Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Amit Saini, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Munish Kumar, AAG, Punjab. **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.452 dated 6.9.2001 under Sections 323, 324, 326/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Rajpura, District Patiala and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2), entered between the parties. Brief facts of the case are that on 5.9.2001 when Charanjeet Singh-Complainant s/o Ram Partap Singh came back from Patiala then at Ajraur Bus Stand he met with Kuldip Singh son of Balwant Singh resident of village Ajraur. When they were talking, one person namely Krishan Ram (petitioner) met them from whom he demanded his money. Then, a scuffle took place between the petitioner and the complainant. Thereafter, Krishan went to his house and came back along with Resham Singh and his younger son armed with stick around 10'O clock and beat the complainant. When Kuldip Singh s/o Balwant Singh tried to rescuse the complainant, he was Crl. Misc. No. M-4471 of 2011 (O&M) (2) given gandasi blow from reverse side which hit to him on the head. Younger son of Krishan gave stick blows to Kuldip Singh on the back side of his head. On raising an alarm, Darshan Singh and Pawan Kumar came up and on seeing them, the accused persons ran away from the spot along with their offending weapons. The motive for causing occurrence is that Krishan Ram did not want to give labour charges which were due towards him. In the above background, F.I.R was registered against the petitioners. However, during the pendency of investigation, both the parties arrived at a compromise with the intervention of respectables and decided to end the matter and to live in peace and harmony. Now petitioners does not want to proceed with the above mentioned F.I.R. Copy of compromise dated 13.01.2011 is annexed as Annexure P-2. Both the complainants have no objection for quashing of the said FIR as per Annnexures P-3 and P-4 and they have given these affidavits without any pressure. In compliance of order dated 11.02.2011, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura has sent a report verifying the contents of the compromise. As per this report, statement of the parties have been recorded in which they have stated that they have entered into compromise with the intervention of respectables and decided to end the matter and live in peace and harmony. Both the parties have admitted the factum of compromise. So compromise appears to be voluntarily and fair. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-4471 of 2011 (O&M) (3) 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-4471 of 2011 (O&M) (4) 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-4471 of 2011 (O&M) (5) 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.452 dated 6.9.2001 under Sections 323, 324, 326/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Rajpura, District Patiala is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 11, 2011 Savita Crl. Misc. No. M-4471 of 2011 (O&M) (6)