Criminal Misc. No. M- 8009 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 8009 of 2010 Date of decision:- 29.3.2011 Amandeep Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. K.B.S. Mann, Advocate for respondent No.2. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 130 dated 13.10.1995 under Sections 325,323,148 and 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Nurmahal, District Jalandhar (Annexure P- 1) on the basis of compromise. As per contents of FIR, complainant Harnek Singh when on 3.10.1995 at about 4 PM was coming back to his home after seeing 'Dushehra' festival and reached near the bridge temple, then accused Pawana son of Dhana, Amana son of Kala, Deepa son of Kailash, Neeta son of Kashmira and Jita son of Jinder, all residents of Rurka Kalan, alongwith four other persons came on a jeep in front of complainant and blocked his way. Thereafter all the accused started beating him. In that scuffle, watch and Rs.8000/- cash of the complainant fell down somewhere. In this background, present FIR was registered against the Criminal Misc. No. M- 8009 of 2010 -2- petitioners. After investigation, the police, filed the challan against Amandeep Singh @ Dimpal , Pritpal Singh, Jasjit Singh, Amandeep Singh and Paramjit Singh. Accused Amandeep alias Dimpal, Jasjit Singh, Amandeep Singh and Paramjit Singh were declared proclaimed offender. Accused Pritpal Singh had faced the trial and was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate vide judgment dated 22.2.2002 holding that the prosecution was failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. It has been observed in the judgment (Annexure P-2) that the prosecution has failed to examine the complainant and other eye witnesses. Only Surjit Singh eye witness appeared and was declared hostile by the prosecution as he has not admitted the occurrence despite cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor. HC Gurmail Singh was examined as PW2 who proved the fact of receipt of MLR No.RK 32/95 of injured Harnek Singh. He also deposed that he has moved the application (Ex.P1) for obtaining the fitness of Harnek Singh injured and also proved endorsement (Ex.P2) of the doctor declaring the injured as fit to give the statement. The Investigating Officer has not deposed anything in regard to occurrence or the presence of accused on the place of occurrence and the complainant has not chosen to appear and support the prosecution version. ASI Sadhu Singh was examined as PW3 who admitted the fact that no eye witness was recorded in rapat No.5, which has been proved as Ex.PB. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case. Dr. Rajnish Kumar has appeared as PW5, who proved the MLR as Ex.PW5/C alongwith photocopy of x- ray reports as Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B and pictorial diagram as Ex.PW5/D, which were filed in the Court. In view of the reply, complainant has chosen not to appear. The prosecution has failed to prove its case and the accused was acquitted of the charge levelled against him for the offence punishable under Sections 148,325, Criminal Misc. No. M- 8009 of 2010 -3- 325/149 and 323/149 IPC. Counsel for the petitioners states that now the petitioners have returned back to this country and a compromise has been effected between the parties after passing of this judgment, which is Annexure P-3. As per this compromise, the complainant stated that Pritpal Singh has been acquitted vide judgment dated 22.2.2002 and now with the intervention of respectable and villagers compromise has been effected between the parties and they are on visiting terms with each others and he has no objection if the petitioners are acquitted or the proceedings against them are quashed. Reply has been filed by Mr. Parampal Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Phillaur, District Jalandhar in which specific objection has been taken that accused Amandeep Singh and Jagjit Singh were declared as proclaimed offenders by the Court. The offence under Section 325 IPC is compoundable by the trial Court. On 29.10.2010, this Court had stayed the arrest of the petitioners during pendency of this compromise petition. In compliance of order dated 14.3.2011, Raj Balwinder Singh Mrar Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, filed an affidavit dated 24.3.2011 in Criminal Misc. No.3425 of 2011 in which it has been stated that Harnek Singh- complainant has suffered only one injury, which was caused by Pawana son of Dhana. Besides the simple injury there was no apparent injury, which could have been mentioned in the MLR. According to the complainant Harnek Singh, Amana son of Jalla, Deepa son of Kailash, Neeta son of Kashmira and Jeeta son of Jinder alongwith four other persons stopped their Jeep in front of him and started giving beatings to him. After going through the affidavit of Raj Balwinder Singh Mrar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Phillaur, Jalandhar Rural, Jalandhar, one thing is clear that only one injury caused with blunt weapon, Criminal Misc. No. M- 8009 of 2010 -4- which was simple in nature, under Section 323 IPC was found on the person of complainant. This injury has not been attributed to the petitioners. In view of the fact that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case before the Judicial Magistrate as the complainant has chosen not to appear, the accused can be acquitted. Since the matter has been compromised between the parties and affidavit of Harnek Singh and the original compromise has been placed on record. No useful purpose will be served if the proceedings are kept pending qua petitioners. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 8009 of 2010 -5- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 8009 of 2010 -6- 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. 130 dated 13.10.1995 under Sections 325,323,148 and 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Nurmahal, District Jalandhar, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. March 29, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE