Criminal Misc. No. M- 4952 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 4952 of 2011 Date of decision:- 11.03.2011 Sunder Lal ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Madan Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG Haryana for respondent No.1-State. Mr. R.S. Chahal, 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. 223 dated 17.12.2010 under Sections 354 IPC and 452 IPC (added later on) registered at Police Station Chhapper, District Yamuna Nagar (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is Jeth of the complainant and the complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner on 17.12.2010. As per complainant, on 15.12.2010 petitioner entered in her house forcibly and tried to outrage her modesty. When the complainant raised noise, then husband of complainant came and rescued her from the hands of accused-petitioner. On the basis of this complaint, police has registered above-mentioned FIR against the accused. Criminal Misc. No. M- 4952 of 2011 -2- Respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and filed her affidavit dated 25.12.2010 admitting the factum of compromise and stating that due to intervention of respectable and relatives, the matter has been compromised with the petitioner and now he is having no objection if the FIR in question with consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed qua petitioner. Respondent No.2-complainant is present in the Court and has identified by her counsel as well as ASI Satpal. As per affidavit, on 15.12.2010 a panchayat had convened to sort out the civil dispute regarding 'Baada' pending between husband of complainant and his brother Madan Lal, Ajmer Singh and Sunder Lal but due to altercation between them, panchayat was postponed on 17.12.2010. On 17.12.2010 all the four brothers quarreled with each other and tried to get the matter solved, her Jeth Sunder Lal asked to come in between. She lodged the present FIR in the above background. Offence under Section 452 IPC is non-compoundable offence. However, in the present situation the dispute has occurred between close family relations. A panchayat was also convened on two occasions on 15th December as well as on 17th December 2010 for amicable settling the family dispute. In a situation like this, inherent powers of Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been exercised by this Court in quashing the proceedings so that the petitioner as well as the complainant can live peacefully. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 4952 of 2011 -3- 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, 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 4952 of 2011 -4- 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 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. 223 dated 17.12.2010 under Sections 354 IPC and 452 IPC (added later on) Criminal Misc. No. M- 4952 of 2011 -5- registered at Police Station Chhapper, District Yamuna Nagar is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. March 11, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE