Crl. Misc. No. M-5638 of 2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-5638 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 22,2011 Balbir Kumar alias Biri ......................................................... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ................................................ Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. K.S.Kahlon, Advocate for the petitioner. ... RITU BAHRI, J. Vide order dated 8.11.2010(Annexure P-5) the petitioner – Balbir Kumar has been declared a proclaimed offender. On the statement made by the complainant that he does not want to lead any pre-charge evidence, accused Rajwinder Kaur and Sahbi were discharged. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present complaint No.12 titled as Ram Murti v. Seema and Ors. was filed on 13.7.2008 under Sections 324/452/504/506/34 IPC. A dispute arose on 1.2.2008 that the complainant along with his wife Balbir Kaur were going to start reconstruction work with the help of masons in his house. All the accused along with Balbir Kumar @ Biri Crl. Misc. No. M-5638 of 2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] entered the house of the complainant in an unlawful manner and after giving Lalkara started beating the complainant. After the fight, the complainant was taken to the Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur, where he remained admitted for six days. After recording the statements, the accused were summoned to face trial under Sections 452/323/506 read with Section 34 IPC. The accused Seema and Balbir Kaur did not appear in the Court and were declared proclaimed offenders on 8.11.2010. On the statement made by the complainant that he did not wish to lead any evidence at the stage of pre- charge evidence, Rajwinder Kaur and Sabhi were discharged. The petitioner submits that on the day of occurrence on 1.2.2008 he was abroad. He came back to India on 22.2.2008 and went back on 2.4.2008. The petitioner has been declared a proclaimed offender. The petitioner has no knowledge that he has been summoned to face trial vide order dated 5.3.2009. As per the Certificate issued by Bureau of immigration Manila and true photocopy of the passport of the petitioner, he was not present at the time of occurrence. Relies on Mehar Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal) 167 to contend that the proclamation order is liable to be set aside when the accused was residing in Canada much before the registration of the case and before declaration of proclaimed offender. No attempt has been made to serve him when he was in Manilla. Hence, order declaring him proclaimed offender is liable to be set aside. Statement of the complainant has been recorded, which is at Annexure P-7, in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 8.11.2010. As per this statement, she does not wish to proceed with the present complaint and has effected a compromise with the accused. The petitioner Balbir Kumar is one of the accused during the proceedings of 8.11.2010. Crl. Misc. No. M-5638 of 2011 (O&M) [ 3 ] After going through the statement of the complainant and compromise (Annexure P-8), there appears to be no reason as to why the petitioner should face the proceedings of the trial. No useful purpose will be served to continue with the proceedings qua the petitioner. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-5638 of 2011 (O&M) [ 4 ] 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 amity 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-5638 of 2011 (O&M) [ 5 ] necessary caution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(2) R.C.R. (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 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 a re, 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 Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), complaint No.12 dated 13.7.2008 titled as Ram Murti v. Seema and Ors. under Sections 324, 452, 504, 506/34 IPC alongwith the summoning orders (Annexure P4) and proclamation order dated 8.11.2010 (Annexure P5) are quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. 22.2.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE