Crl. Misc. No. M-2927 of 2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-2927 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 22,2011 Neeru Saini and another ...................................................... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ............................................... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Arun Takhi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Raghubir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. ... RITU BAHRI, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing FIR No. 91 dated 21.10.2010 under Section 306 IPC registered at Police Station Chabbewal, District Hoshiarpur. This FIR had been registered on the statement of Smt. Balwinder Kaur. Harjeet Singh is the elder son of Balwinder Kaur and married to Neeru Saini. On 17.10.2010 there was a quarrel between the husband and wife in connection with staying separate from the in-laws house. On Crl. Misc. No. M-2927 of 2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] 30.10.2010 the complainant's son's mother-in-law came from Amritsar and next day Harjeet Singh made his mother-in-law and wife sit in the bus for Amritsar. Thereafter, he did not get up in the morning. At about 11:00 AM Balwinder Kaur got a message and on coming back home she was informed that Harjeet Singh had committed suicide. In a hand written note Harjeet Singh had written that he had ended his life on being harassed by his wife Neeru Saini and mother-in-law Prem Lata. After registeration of the FIR, the misunderstanding between the families has been cleared and respondent No.2 Balwinder Kaur has entered into a compromise and does not wish to pursue the FIR in question. On notice, counsel for respondent No.2 has filed the affidavit of the complainant in Court. The complainant-Balwinder Kaur, who has been present in Court has been identified by ASI Hazara Ram, who is also present in Court. After going through the contents of the affidavit, it appears that the complainant does not wish to pursue the FIR in the present case and has no objection if the same is quashed. The offence under Section 306 IPC is being sought to be compounded by way of compromise. In the present case, the petitioners and complainant are all family members and they have now decided to bury the misunderstanding existing between them. Even if the proceedings in the FIR are allowed to be continued, it would end up in a futile exercise as the complainant has already decided not to support the allegations in the FIR. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-2927 of 2011 (O&M) [ 3 ] 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 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 amity and reduces friction, then it truly is finest hour of justice”. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial Crl. Misc. No. M-2927 of 2011 (O&M) [ 4 ] 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, 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) R.C.R. (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 Crl. Misc. No. M-2927 of 2011 (O&M) [ 5 ] conviction. 2. It is advisable that in 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 a re, 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 Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), FIR No. 91 dated 21.10.2010 under Section 306 IPC registered at Police Station Chabbewal, District Hoshiarpur, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. 22.2.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE