Crl. Misc. No. M-3609 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-3609 of 2011 Date of decision : 28.04.2011 Darbara Singh and others ......Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Rahul Rampal, Advocate for the petitioners. Sh. Guninder Singh Brar, A.A.G., Punjab for respondent No. 1-State Mr. Hitesh Sood, Advocate for respondent No. 2 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.16 dated 08.03.2007(Annexure P-1) under Sections 452, 323, 506, 148, 149 of IPC, registered at Police Station City Sudhar, District Ludhiana and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 21.12.2010 (Annexure P-2). As per F.I.R, when complainant was present at his house, one Guddu of his village duly armed with Deah Iron, Babbi armed with Daang, Ghudda armed with Dang, Bhag armed with Daang, Jagga armed with pipe iron, all entered his house since the gate of the house was open. Thereafter, Darbara Singh alias Jagga raised a lalkara that do not spare the complainant today and all the accused attacked him. Guddu gave a blow of his daah from the reverse side on the complainant head which hit him on his forhead on Crl. Misc. No. M-3609 of 2011 -2- the left hand side and he fell down. Ghudda, Babbi and Guddu took him out of the house and took him on the passage outside the gate. Thereafter, the complainant's friends came on the spot who tried to rescue the complainant but the accused Bhag gave a blow of his daang on the arm of one of his friend who was rescuing him, which hit all the five fingers of his. Thereafter, Ghudda gave a daang blow upon the complainant head which hit above him ear. Thereafter, the complainant raised an alarm of “Maar ta Maar ta”. Thereafter, the accused left from the spot. The reason for the enmity was that during the Assembly elections, the complainant supported the Akali party and the above persons supported the Congress party. For this reasons, accused inflicted injuries on the complainant. In the above background, F.I.R was registered against the petitioners. However, after the investigation, challan was presented and the charges were framed and the trial was pending for prosecution evidence. During the pendency, both the parties arrived at a compromise (Annexure P2) with the intervention of Panchayat of the village and other respectable persons. Respondent No. 2 also filed his affidavit which is annexed as Annexure P3. As per the compromise, that earlier some differences took place between both the parties and during the period of this differences, both the parties got their cases registered against each other. The complainant have registered the above said F.I.R and the petitioners have registered the cross F.I.R No. 16 dated 8.3.207 at Police Station Sudhar against the complainant and others. The challans were presented in the Court against the parties and the cases of both the parties are pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jagraon. The parties have now amicably settled all their disputes and want to live in peace, love and Crl. Misc. No. M-3609 of 2011 -3- mutual brotherhood. Now both the parties are not willing to initiate any sort of proceedings against each other. Both the parties are agreed and bound to close their above respective cases and do not want to continue the same. The compromise has been effected with sweet will and without any pressure. In compliance with order dated 04.02.2011, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Jagraon has sent its report. As per report, in F.I.R No. 16 dated 08.03.2007, the complainant Manjinder Singh appeared in the Court and admitted the factum of compromise with the accused. Accused Arbara Singh, Kamaldeep Singh, Ramandeep Singh, Gurmeet Singh and Bhag Singh have also appeared in the Court and admitted the factum of compromise with the complainant. In DDR No. 13 dated 06.03.2007, the presence of accused Inderjit Singh accused is yet to be procured but the statements of the complainant-Darbara Singh and that of accused of accused party i.e Avtar Singh, parminder Singh, Sarabjot Singh, Harjinder Singh, Manjinder Singh, Hardeep Singh of village Jodhana except Inderjit Singh have been recorded who have admitted the factum of compromise. In view of the statements made by the accused, the compromise is held to be genuine. This Court in Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal versus State of Punjab a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 17.3.2011 had an occasion to examine a case where three accused namely Radha Mandal, Rajiya Mandal and Sambodh Mandal were facing trial under Section 302 IPC, and subsequently they had absconded and declared proclaimed offenders. In the trial, accused Sudo Mandal and Dharminder Mandal were convicted by the trial Court. Appeal of accused Sudo Mandal and Dharminder Mandal were allowed by observing that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish its case. While Crl. Misc. No. M-3609 of 2011 -4- examining the case of the three accused, who had been declared proclaimed offenders, this Court, while exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashed the proceedings against the absconding accused on the ground that no useful purpose will be served if they are produced and ordered to face the trial. In the present case the FIR has been quashed qua the co-accused, the petitioner have approached this Court on the ground that the other co- accused have been acquitted and it would empty formality of trial, which would ultimately lead to their acquittal. In the present case since no useful purpose will be served by asking the petitioner Inderjit Singh, who are proclaimed offenders to face the trial. The petition filed by their attorney is being entertained. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-3609 of 2011 -5- 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.” 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, Crl. Misc. No. M-3609 of 2011 -6- 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) and applying the ration of Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal versus State of Punjab (supra), FIR No.16 dated 08.03.2007(Annexure P-1) under Sections 452, 323, 506, 148, 149 of IPC, registered at Police Station City Sudhar, District Ludhiana, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. Crl. Misc. No. M-3609 of 2011 -7- The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE April 07, 2011 G.Arora