Crl. Misc. No. M-9959 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-9959 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 25.05.2011 Mohinder Pal and others ......Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate for the petitioners. Sh. Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab for respondent No. 1-State Mr. Jagat Pal Singh Banwait, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR No.232 dated 25.08.2009 under Sections 323, 324, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the Code') registered at Police Station Banga, District S.B.S Nagar (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). Brief facts of the case are that the above FIR was registered Crl. Misc. No. M-9959 of 2010 (O&M) -2- at the instance of respondent No. 2. On 18.08.2009, at about 8 P.M respondent No. 2 was called by JE Parmanand of the electricity department to the house of Mohinder Pal, where he went and the JE told me that Mohinder Pal is committing theft of electricity. At this, Mohinder Pal asked respondent No. 2 why he had come present. Thereafter son of Mohinder Pal slapped him and gave a stick blow on his back. Harmesh has also started beating him. Then Baljit son of Harmesh Lal started beating him with a wooden baton, which struck on his back. Kamaljit Kaur wife of Harmesh Lal also gave blow on his elbow with a doli used for making Saag. Then Biru gave him internal injuries. Thereafter, one white colour Maruti car bearing No.PB-10G- 4301 came and stopped there from which 3/4 boys alighted out of whom one was Kimti Lal. Kimti Lal gave a data blow and when he raised his left arm in self defence, it struck on his wrist and all the others gave him beatings. Meanwhile, Baldish Kumar son of Joginder also reached there and tried to save respondent No. 2 but Kimti Lal gave datar blow on his left elbow. One unidentified boy gave a baseball bat blow. This incident was eye witnesses by Parmanand JE. In the above background, FIR was registered against the petitioners. However, during the pendency of the trial, the parties have compromised the matter with the intervention of respectable Crl. Misc. No. M-9959 of 2010 (O&M) -3- persons/Khangi Panchayat , of the locality and now the complainant has no grudge against the accused party and does not want to continue/pursue the aforesaid case. The complainant/respondent No. 2 is ready to suffer any/all types of statements in the Court including this Court for quashing of the FIR. Similarly accused party has also no grudge against the complainant. Respondent No. 2 and 3 have also filed their affidavit (Annexures P3 and P4). As per these affidavits, they have admitted that they have compromised the matter with their own free will and without any pressure. Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has put in appearance and tendered the affidavit of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. As per these affidavits, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties vide compromise deed (Annexure P2). The compromise has been signed by them with their own free will after admitting the contents of the same to be correct, without any fear, pressure, coercion or undue influence from any quarter. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are also present in Court and have been duly identified by their counsel. Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has also tendered original affidavits of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and original compromise. The original affidavits are taken on record as Annexure A-1 and A-2. Original compromise is also taken on record as Annexure A-3. Crl. Misc. No. M-9959 of 2010 (O&M) -4- Learned State counsel has informed the Court that after investigation, challan has not been presented so far in this case. 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 of which the Court sets before it, in exercise of such Crl. Misc. No. M-9959 of 2010 (O&M) -5- 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.” Crl. Misc. No. M-9959 of 2010 (O&M) -6- 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 status report, compromise effected between the parties and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases 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.232 dated 25.08.2009 under Crl. Misc. No. M-9959 of 2010 (O&M) -7- Sections 323, 324, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the Code') registered at Police Station Banga, District S.B.S Nagar (Annexure P-1), is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 25, 2011 G.Arora