Crl. Misc. No. M-3020 of 2011 (O&M) & Crl. Misc. No. M-3259 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Crl. Misc. No. M-3020 of 2011 (O&M) Santo Devi and others ......Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents 2. Crl. Misc. No. M-3259 of 2011 (O&M) Jaspal Singh and others ......Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents Date of decision : 06.05.2011 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: None for the petitioners. Sh. Vishal Munjal, Addl.A.G., Punjab for respondent No. 1-State **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) This order of mine shall dispose of these two petitions as they arise out of same FIR. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of F.I.R No. 151 dated 20.08.1998 under Sections 452/380/342/506/323/148/149/218/315 of IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Line, Patiala, pending in the Court of JMIC, Patiala for 24.02.2011 and cross case i.e complaint No 72 T dated 07.09.2000 under Sections 204/219/466/120-B of IPC, in view of the compromise deed dated Crl. Misc. No. M-3020 of 2011 (O&M) & Crl. Misc. No. M-3259 of 2011 (O&M) -2- 24.02.2011 Before adverting in to the merits of the case, it would first be necessary to point out the contents of the F.I.R. On 29.08.1998, the incident took place due to misunderstanding of the parties, therefore, respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint against the petitioners and the present FIR was registered. The reason for this dispute was regarding some land for which respondent No. 2 has filed a case against three persons. Thereafter, petitioners lodged a private complaint No 72 T dated 07.09.2000 under Sections 204/219/466/120-B of IPC, against the respondents, which is pending in the Court of JMIC, Patiala. After registration of the FIR, challan was presented against the petitioners and prosecution lead its evidence and now the trial is pending for remaining prosecution evidence on 24.02.2011. However, during trial one accused namely Ashok Singh expired on 02.08.2003 (Annexure P1). However, during the pendency of the trial, with the intervention of respectable of the society and well wishers of the parties, the petitioners and respondents No. 2 to 5 have decided to settle the matter in both complaint case as well as in FIR case. Compromise deed is Annexure P2. As per compromise deed, both the parties have been mutually agreed with the intervention of respectable of the society and friends to resolve their criminal cases as well as civil litigation. It has been agreed between the parties that first party will hand over the possession of premises in dispute i.e kothi No. 24 , Bhupindra Road, Opposite DAV Public School, Patiala. In lieu of this second party will pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation at the times of delivering of possession of aforementioned premises. It has been further agreed that first party will withdraw the RSA No. 1846 of 2010. It Crl. Misc. No. M-3020 of 2011 (O&M) & Crl. Misc. No. M-3259 of 2011 (O&M) -3- was further agreed that both the party will leave a peaceful life and want to resolve the dispute amicably without any undue pressure and influence. Both the parties have further no objection if the FIR and complaint be quashed against each other. In compliance of order dated 08.02.2011, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala has sent its reports in both the cases i.e FIR and complaint case. As per these reports, the complainants and accused have appeared before the Court and suffered to the effect that compromise has been effected. Complainant had also suffered a statement so the compromise appears to be voluntarily without any inducement coercion etc. Separate statements to this effect has been recorded in presence of their counsels. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-3020 of 2011 (O&M) & Crl. Misc. No. M-3259 of 2011 (O&M) -4- 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.” 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. Crl. Misc. No. M-3020 of 2011 (O&M) & Crl. Misc. No. M-3259 of 2011 (O&M) -5- 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), F.I.R No. 151 dated 20.08.1998 under Sections 452/380/342/506/323/148/149/218/315 of Crl. Misc. No. M-3020 of 2011 (O&M) & Crl. Misc. No. M-3259 of 2011 (O&M) -6- IPC and complaint No 72 T dated 07.09.2000 under Sections 204/219/466/120-B of IPC are quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The petitions stand disposed of. May 06, 2011 (RITU BAHRI) G.Arora JUDGE