Criminal Misc. No. M-5655 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-5655 of 2011 Date of decision:-01.6.2011 Raju and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Nonish Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG Haryana. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The petitioners have sought quashing of FIR No.7 dated 4.1.2011 under Sections 148,149,427,323 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Karnal on the basis of compromise. As per FIR, complainant is a driver on Bus No.HR-45A-0030 and Jagdish is the Conductor on the same bus. That on 3.1.2011 at about 6.15 PM when they going from Moonak to Karnal and reached at Budanpur Kanal Bridge, Awardhan about 7 PM when the bus stopped then 5-6 boys alongwith lathi, sticks and rods came there and start causing loss to the bus and gave beatings to the complainant and the conductor. In this background, the FIR was registered. During the pendency of investigation the parties have entered into compromise (Annexure P-2). In compliance of order dated 23.2.2011 status report has been received from the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal. As per status report, on 31.3.2011 statements of parties recorded and they have Criminal Misc. No. M-5655 of 2011 -2- deposed that they have arrived at compromise and now are living with peace and harmony. They are abide by the compromise Ex.C-1. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-5655 of 2011 -3- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-5655 of 2011 -4- 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.7 dated 4.1.2011 under Sections 148,149,427,323 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Karnal, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. June 01, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE