Criminal Misc. No. M-3825 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-3825 of 2011 Date of decision:-03.05.2011 Palwinder Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Vivek Salathia, 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.123 dated 23.8.2008 under Sections 452,326,325,324,323,148 and 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Jhabal, District Tarn Taran (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). As per FIR, on 20.8.2008 at around 8.15 AM, when complainant was present with her family at her house alongwith one Davinder Singh son of Savinder Singh, her grandson, then Jagtar Singh armed with Kirpan, Joginder Singh armed with dang, Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha armed with dang, Dilbag Singh empty handed, Palwinder Singh armed with Dang, Jujj armed with dang, Sunny armed with dang, Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi armed with hockey, Mangal Singh @ Manga armed with dang and Lali armed with sota came to her house and start causing injuries to them with their respective weapons. After causing injuries all the accused fled away with their respective weapons. In this Criminal Misc. No. M-3825 of 2011 -2- background, FIR was registered. During the pending proceedings, a compromise was effected between the parties on 28.1.2011. In compliance of order dated 07.2.2011, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Tarn Taran has sent a report verifying the contents of the compromise. As per this report, on 29.3.2011 statements of complainant Kulwant Kaur and injured Amar Singh were recorded to the effect that they have compromised the matter with the accused and have no more grudge against all the accused and they do not want to contest the present case and the same treated as dismissed as withdrawn. The compromise dated 28.1.2011 is Mark 'A'. Joint statement of accused Palwinder Singh, Jagtar Singh, Joginder Singh, Hazara Singh, Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha, Dilbagh Singh, Jujj Singh, Sarwan Singh @ Sunny, Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi, Mangal Singh @ Manga and Gurdev Singh @ Lali has been recorded to the effect that they have compromised the matter with the complainant. The compromise dated 28.1.2011 (Mark 'A') is correct. After recording the statements of the parties, the compromise is held to be genuine. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-3825 of 2011 -3- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-3825 of 2011 -4- 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 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.123 dated 23.8.2008 under Sections 452,326,325,324,323,148 and 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Jhabal, District Tarn Taran, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. May 03, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE