Crl. Misc. No. M-35366 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-35366 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision :04.05.2011 Smt. Santosh & others .....Petitioners versus State of Haryana ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. C.B. Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Sh. Kshitij Sharma, AAG, Haryana for the respondents. **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C is for quashing of F.I.R No. 165 dated 11.05.2004 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 of IPC, registered at Police Station City Bhiwani (Annexure P1) and criminal complaint No. 100-1/2004 dated 07.07.2004 (Annexure P2) under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 452 of IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, as both the cases are pending for trial in the Court of learned JMIC, Bhiwani for 15.10.2010. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.05.2004 at 10 p.m when petitioner No. 1 (complainant in F.I.R) along with his son reached at their house, they found the gate of their house was opened. They were given beatings by petitioner No. 2 and her husband. In the above background, F.I.R was registered against them. Thereafter, a cross case was registered on 07.07.2004 by the husband ( who has since been died) of petitioner No. 2 against petitioner Crl. Misc. No. M-35366 of 2010 (O&M) -2- No. 1 and others. As per this complaint, accused persons belong to the family of the complainant but they quarreled and forcibly in nature and do not bother about law. The above complaint was registered as the petitioner No. 1 and others have inflicted injuries upon petitioner No. 2 and his family members. However, during the pendency of investigation, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute pending between them mutually with consent. The civil suit which was pending between the parties for partition has also been compromised and they have no grievance against each other of any kind. In compliance of order dated 07.02.2011, status report has been submitted by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class. As per this report, statement of all the concerned parties was recorded in FIR No. 165 dated 11.05.2004 and it appears from the statements that the matter in dispute stands compromised between the parties. Statements in cross case has also been recorded and it appears from the statements that the matter in dispute stands compromised between the parties. Even though offences under Sections 324/452 of the IPC are non-compoundable, however, keeping in view of the fact that the compromise has been effected between the parties, this Court has no hesitation to accept that the compromise has been arrived in a just and fair manner. 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-35366 of 2010 (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 Crl. Misc. No. M-35366 of 2010 (O&M) -4- 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-35366 of 2010 (O&M) -5- (supra), F.I.R No. 165 dated 11.05.2004 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 of IPC, registered at Police Station City Bhiwani (Annexure P1) and criminal complaint No. 100-1/2004 dated 07.07.2004 (Annexure P2) are quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 04, 2011 G.Arora