Criminal Misc. No. M-9475 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. 29222 of 2011 in Criminal Misc. No. M-9475 of 2011 Date of decision:-26.5.2011 Jatinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Balram Singh, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner. Mr. Munish Kumar, AAG Punjab. Mr. Jasjeet Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) Criminal Misc. No.29222 of 2011 Application is allowed and the case be put up today. Criminal Misc. No. M-9475 of 2011 Petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No.104 dated 23.3.2002 under Sections 279,338 and 427 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar (now Police Station Maqsudan, Jalandhar) on the basis of compromise. As per FIR, on 23.3.2002, when the complainant along with his family, son Ravinder Singh, wife Baljinder Kaur and son-in-law Harkirat Singh, gone to Darbara Sahib Amritsar from Ludhiana in their Maruti Car No.PB-10-AC- 7458 and when they were coming back about 3.15 P.M., they reached near the Criminal Misc. No. M-9475 of 2011 -2- gate of ESS ESS Key Engg. Company Limited then one maruti car which was coming from Jalandhar side driven with full speed and negligently and without giving horn hit their car. After the said car bearing No. PB-29-A-0975 caused heavy loss to the complainant's car. Their car was driven by their son Ravinder Kumar and whole family sitting in the car suffered several injuries. The complainant thereafter came to know that the said car was being driven by one Jatinder Singh (petitioner). In the above background, the FIR was registered against the petitioner. During pendency of the trial, the petitioner was declared Proclaimed Offender vide order dated 13.9.2004. Petitioner has also placed on record copy of the order (Annexure P-3). As per this order, proclamation against accused Jatinder Singh has been duly effected on 20.5.2004. Statement of serving constable has also been recorded to the effect that the accused has gone abroad. Therefore, the copy of proclamation was affixed on the door of the house of the accused (Ex.P2). As the accused was deliberately not appearing before the Court, therefore, he was declared proclaimed offender. During the pendency of the trial, compromise has been effected between the parties (Annexure P2). As per this compromise, complainant and his family members have realized that the petitioner is not at fault and he has committed no offence. The matter has been compromised amicably between both the parties with the intervention of respectable of the society. The complainant has also agreed to withdraw the above said case and will not pursue further. The complainant has further agreed not to file any civil, criminal or claim case against the petitioner. The complainant has also no objection if the FIR in question and other proceedings be quashed against the petitioner. In compliance of order dated o4.5.2011 the petitioner has appeared before the trial Court 14.5.2011 and his bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- Criminal Misc. No. M-9475 of 2011 -3- with one surety in the like amount were accepted. 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 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, Criminal Misc. No. M-9475 of 2011 -4- 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) 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-9475 of 2011 -5- 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 compromise effected between the parties and 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), FIR No.104 dated 23.3.2002 under Sections 279,338 and 427 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar (now Police Station Maqsudan, Jalandhar), is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. May 26, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE