Crl. Misc.No. M-4781 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc.No. M-4781 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.05.2011 Jasbir Kaur and another ....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Veneet Soni, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Munish Kumar, AAG, Punjab for respondent No. 1-State Mr. Robinjit S. Shergill, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of case F.I.R No.104 dated 09.07.2006 under Sections 323,452, 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 07.02.2011 (Annexure P1) Brief facts of the case are that on 08.07.2006, when the complainant was taking bath at his house, then petitioners entered into his house and started abusing the complainant and his family members. On this, the wife and mother of the complainant came outside in Verdana. Thereafter petitioners entered into verdana after opening its door. At that petitioner No. 1 was holding a Kahi and she had thrown the kahi and pahi in the Veranda of the complainant. Then the complainant and his family members started shouting. Ajaib Singh Crl. Misc.No. M-4781 of 2011 (O&M) -2- who was holding a stick, gave blows towards the complainant on the left knee, left shoulder and right shoulder. Thereafter, respondent No.3 came forward to save the complainant, but she was also given a blow on the right hand by petitioner No. 1 with the back side of kahi. Thereafter, respondents raised hue and cry and the accused party ran away from the spot after throwing kahi on the spot. Then the respondents got admitted in the hospital in the CH, Bassi Pathana. In the above background, FIR was registered against the petitioners. After investigation of the case, challan was present and the charges were framed against the petitioners and the matter is now fixed for prosecution evidence. However, during the pendency, a compromise has also been effected between the parties. The parties have mutually agreed that they will withdraw all the litigation pending between them and both the parties will not create dispute with other in future and will live in peace and good harmony. It was further agreed that both the parties will remain bound by the compromise and made the statements wherever required for implementing the above said compromise. In compliance of order dated 15.02.2011, notice was issued and trial court was directed to send the report with regard to the validity or otherwise of the compromise/affidavit (Annexure P1) after recording statement of all the concerned parties. Civil Judge (jr. Divn)-cum- Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib has sent the report, which indicates that both the parties were called upon. Statement of injured-complainant Kulwant Singh was recorded in the Court stating therein that with the intervention of respectables of the area, they have entered into a compromise with the accused- petitioners. He has further stated that both the parties are bound down by the compromise (Annexure P1). He identified their signatures as Crl. Misc.No. M-4781 of 2011 (O&M) -3- well his own signatures on the compromise and the compromise is for the benefit of their families and to create harmony and good relations in future between them. The compromise is without any fear, pressure and influence. He has further no objection if the FIR in question is quashed against the petitioners. Similarly, statement of Sarabjit singh, Jaspal Kaur and Amandeep Kaur (witnesses of the case) were recorded to the same effect. Joint statement of the accused party was also recorded to the effect that they have compromised the matter pending between them in various Courts being close family members and same is Annexure P1 and they have duly identified their signatures on the compromise. 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 Crl. Misc.No. M-4781 of 2011 (O&M) -4- 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 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 Crl. Misc.No. M-4781 of 2011 (O&M) -5- 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 in view of the status report, this Court has no hesitation to quash the present FIR. Accordingly, F.I.R No.104 dated 09.07.2006 under Sections 323,452, 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 18, 2011 G.Arora