Crl. Misc. No. M-24174 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-24174 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.03.2011 Gurdeep Singh and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present : Mr. Amrik Singh, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG Haryana for the respondent – State Mr. S.P. Paul, Advocate for respondent No. 2 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? RITU BAHRI J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 140 dated 10.9.2008 registered at Police Station Pinjore District Panchkula under Sections 323/406/498-A/506 and 120-B IPC (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2 ). Brief facts of the present case are that marriage of petitioner No. 1 was solemnized with respondent No. 2 on 23.3.2003 and a girl child was born out this wedlock and some differences arose between the parties and respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Panchkula against the petitioners with the prayer that the accused may kindly be summoned under Crl. Misc. No. M-24174 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 120-B, 506 of IPC and they may kindly be tried and punished in accordance with law. It was further prayed that the present complaint may kindly be referred to the police of P.S. Pinjore under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with the directions to lodge FIR against the accused under Section 323, 406, 498-A, 120-B, 506 IPC and investigate the matter in accordance with law. Respondent No. 2 – complainant appeared through counsel and filed her reply by way of affidavit admitting the factum of compromise and stating that at present she is residing with her husband and all the misunderstandings and differences have been sorted out and now she is having no objection if the FIR in question with consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed qua the petitioners. The accused - Gurdeep Singh is also present in the Court and duly identified by his counsel. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-24174 of 2010 (O&M) 3 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 such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and Crl. Misc. No. M-24174 of 2010 (O&M) 4 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. Crl. Misc. No. M-24174 of 2010 (O&M) 5 3. Keeping the matter alive with no possibility of conviction is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 910 has examined a case where quashing was sought of an FIR under Section 498-A IPC being non-compoundable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :- “Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the parties have settled their differences. It was submitted on behalf of the complainant Smt. Sadhna Madnawat that she is not interested in prosecuting the appellants. It may be pertinent to mention that the parties hail from cultured and educated families. It was also submitted that the appellant's parents are suffering from multiple ailments because of advanced age. The appellant's father is a retired Professor and Dean, Veterinary College, Mathura and he had undergone transplant of his kidney and the appellant's mother is suffering from multiple ailments and is virtually bed-ridden.” 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-24174 of 2010 (O&M) 6 and another (supra) and Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another(supra), FIR No. 140 dated 10.9.2008 registered at Police Station Pinjore, District Panchkula under Sections 323/406/498-A/506 and 120-B IPC is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) 28.03.2011 JUDGE reena