Criminal Misc. No. M-1020 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-1020 of 2011 Date of decision:- 07.3.2011 Kulwinder Jot Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl.A.G. Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.184 dated 25.11.2006 under Sections 323,324,341,148 and 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Mahilpur (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). As per FIR, on 22.11.2006 when the complainant Ajit Singh alias Jit going back to his village Jalwehda, about 5-6 young man came in a maruti car of blue colour and struck into his scooter from front side. 3-4 boys came out of the car carrying kirpan, base ball bats and dandas. One of the boy Rinku son of Pal armed with kirpan and gave a blow, which hit the complainant on left wrist. He ran away towards the fields of Avtar Singh. While he was running, somebody gave a datar blow from behind, which hit the elbow. In the meantime, one Jatti son of Ratan, Caste Adharmi alongwith two unidentified persons followed him on Criminal Misc. No. M-1020 of 2011 -2- motorcycle on the kacha rasta and gave danda blows from behind. There was a while colour Sumo car in which two persons were sitting. There was one more sumo car and many persons were standing through windows. He ran away to the fields to save himself. He fell down in front of Kothi of Harnam Singh. After that Badbhag Singh arranged a vehicle and took him to the Civil Hospital. In the above background, the FIR was registered against the petitioners. During the proceedings pending in the investigation, a compromise was effected on 01.10.2010 between the complainant-respondent No.2 and the petitioner Kulwinder Jot Singh. As per compromise, dispute has been settled amicably and both the parties have decided to live peacefully. In compliance of order dated 13.1.2011, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hoshiarpur has sent a report verifying the contents of the compromise. As per this report, on 14.2.2011 complainant Ajit Singh appeared before the trial Court and recorded his statement to the effect that he has entered into compromise with accused Kulwinder Jot Singh son of Dara Singh. He does not want to proceed with the FIR in question and has no objection if the same is quashed. Statement of accused Kulwinder Jot Singh was also recorded on the same day to the effect that he has entered into compromise with complainant Ajit Singh. After recording the statements of the parties, the compromise is held to be genuine. This is a case where the FIR has been registered against six accused persons and compromise has been effected with the petitioner. Relies on Parambir Singh Gill versus Malkiat Kaur 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 256 , in which FIR was quashed qua one accused whereas it had been registered against seven accused. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-1020 of 2011 -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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-1020 of 2011 -4- 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) 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-1020 of 2011 -5- 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), FIR No.184 dated 25.11.2006 under Sections 323,324,341,148 and 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Mahilpur, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. March 07, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE