Criminal Misc. No. M- 3903 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Criminal Misc. No. M- 3903 of 2011 Date of decision:-03.05.2011 Lal Chand @ Kala and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents 2. Criminal Misc. No. M- 4276 of 2011 Navjot Singh @ Sidhu and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM No. M-3903 of 2011) and for the complainant (in CRM No.M-4276 of 2011). Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. R.S. Modi, Advocate for respondent No.2 (in CRM No. M-3903 of 2011) and for the petitioners (in CRM No. M-4276 of 2011). RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) Both the aforesaid petitions are being taken up together as the same have arisen from the same incident. The present petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.77 dated 15.10.2008 under Sections 323 and 324 IPC read Criminal Misc. No. M- 3903 of 2011 [2] with Section 34 IPC (and Section 326 IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Bullowal, District Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-1) (in CRM No. M-3903 of 2011) and FIR No.77 dated 15.10.2008 under Sections 452,324,323,326,427,148 and 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Bullowal, District Hoshiarpur (in CRM No. M-4276 of 2011) on the basis of compromise. For the sake of convenience the facts are being taken up from Criminal Misc. No. M-3903 of 2011. As per FIR, on 12.10.2008 when the complainant-Navjot Singh was going to Sham Chaurasi to purchase of house hold articles on his motor-cycle at about 2.15 O'clock. When he reached near Darbar Baba Shamishah, then accused Amarjit Lal having Kirpan, Pappu having handle of spade and Lal Chand @ Kala having Kirpan came on motor-cycle from the front side, stopped him and attacked on him. They caused many injuries to the complainant with their respective weapons. The complainant further states that the reason for the quarrel was that near about 15/20 days ago from this incident, a dispute took place between complainant and Lal Chand @ Kala-petitioner and in that incident Lal Chand was given injuries, due to this reason the petitioners have caused injuries to the complainant. In this background both the cross case were registered against the parties. In compliance of order dated 07.2.2011, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hoshiarpur has sent a report verifying the contents of the compromise. As per this report, on 14.3.2011 statements of complainant Navjot Singh as well as accused Lal Chand and Palvinder Kumar were recorded separately. Both the complainant as well as accused submitted that they had voluntarily executed compromise (Annexure P-2) without any form of coercion. Similarly in case State versus Navjot Singh statement of Mrs. Manjit Kaur wife of Kashmiri Lal was recorded on behalf of complainant Amarjit Lal. She had placed on record the Criminal Misc. No. M- 3903 of 2011 [3] original special power of attorney before the trial Court purportedly executed by Amarjit Lal in her favour authorizing her to suffer any statement on his behalf in the present FIR. After recording the statements of the parties, the compromise is held to be 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 3903 of 2011 [4] 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 3903 of 2011 [5] 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), cross case FIR No.77 dated 15.10.2008 under Sections 323 and 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC (and Section 326 IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Bullowal, District Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-1) (in CRM No. M-3903 of 2011) and FIR No.77 dated 15.10.2008 under Sections 452,324,323,326,427,148 and 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Bullowal, District Hoshiarpur (in CRM No. M-4276 of 2011) are quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. Both the petitions stand disposed of. May 03, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE