Crl. Misc.No. M-3189 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc.No. M-3189 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.04.2011 Naresh Kumar and others ......Petitioners versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Jitender S. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG, Haryana for the respondent **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.139 dated 20.09.2005 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 323, 324, 325, 452, 506 of IPC registered at Police Station Bilaspur, District Yamunanagar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner No.1/complainant had lodged the above said F.I.R against petitioner Nos. 5 to 8. As per F.I.R, on 20.09.2005, at about 6 a.m, petitioner No. 5 was walking on the roof of his house and was spitting the saliva of datum in open space of his house. When he opposed the same, petitioner no. 5 has abused him and thrown piece of brikline on him after picking from his roof, which hit on his head. Petitioner No.1 also abused him. Then after hearing the noise of abusing, son of petitioner No. 5 came to the house of petitioner No. 1 by holding a Crl. Misc.No. M-3189 of 2011 (O&M) -2- rod in his hand and gave a blow on the petitioner, which hit on his left elbow. Petitioner No. 6 again gave a saria blow to the petitioner No. 1, which hit on his thumb of left hand. After hearing the noise of quarrel, petitioner's borther namely Mani Ram came there and in between petitioner No. 5 has also came there after coming down from his roof by holding a rod of tap and gave a blow of rod of tap on the head of petitioner's brother. When petitioner's brother came for rescue from them and petitioner No. 5 has cut the right ear of petitioner No. 2 with his teeth. Thereafter, wife and daughter of petitioner No. 5 has also came there and they have also given injuries to petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 with the brick kiln. When they made a noise, all accused ran away from the spot In the above background, F.I.R was registered. However, during the pendency of investigation, the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 have entered into compromise (Annexure P3) with petitioner Nos. 5 to 8. Since the parties are residents of same village and are neighbourers, so, in order to maintain peace and good relations between them, they have entered into compromise with the intervention of the respectable persons and friends and panchayat of the village for maintaining peace and brotherhood ship. The petitioner No. 1 has also sown an affidavit in support of the prayer. True copy of the compromise and affidavit of petitioner No. 1/complainant is annexed as Annexure P-2 and P-3. As per the compromise dated 29.1.2011, the parties have settled all their differences in order to maintain cordial relations between them and they further undertake that they will not give any cause of complaint to each other. Now there is no dispute between the parties and they have agreed to live peacefully. The parties have entered into compromise of their own free Crl. Misc.No. M-3189 of 2011 (O&M) -3- will, without any inducement of pressure of any quarter. The parties shall bound with the terms and conditions of the agreement/compromise. In compliance of order dated 02.02.2011, report from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamunanagar, District Jagadhari has been received. As per this report, Naresh Kumar (complainant/petitioner No. 1) as well as injured petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 had made their joint statements, who had been duly identified by their learned counsel, to the effect that they have compromised the matter with accused persons without any pressure and there remains no dispute between them. They have further stated that they do not want any action against the accused persons. On the other hand, accused persons i.e petitioner Nos. 5 to 8 have also made their statement that they have compromised the matter with the complainant Naresh Kumar etc without any pressure with the intervention of respectables and they will remain bound by it. The compromise as per report is valid and 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 Crl. Misc.No. M-3189 of 2011 (O&M) -4- 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 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 Crl. Misc.No. M-3189 of 2011 (O&M) -5- 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 Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (supra) and Crl. Misc.No. M-3189 of 2011 (O&M) -6- 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.139 dated 20.09.2005 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 323, 324, 325, 452, 506 of IPC registered at Police Station Bilaspur, District Yamunanagar is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner Nos. 5 to 8. Petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE April 21, 2011 G.Arora