Criminal Misc. No. M-3519 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Criminal Misc. No. M-3519 of 2011 Date of decision:- 26.4.2011 Parmod Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents 2. Criminal Misc. No. M-4010 of 2011 Sandeep Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Virander Soni, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM No.M-3519 of 2011) and for respondent No.2 (in Criminal Misc. No. M-4010 of 2011). Mr. P.S. Virk, DAG Haryana for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate for respondent No.2 (in CRM No.M-3519 of 2011) and for petitioner (in Criminal Misc. No. M-4010 of 2011). RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) Vide this order both the aforesaid petitions are being disposed of as Criminal Misc. No. M-3519 of 2011 -2- the same have arisen out of the same incident. The present petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.474 dated 1.6.2010 under Sections 294 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Line Karnal, District Karnal (Annexure P-1) (in CRM No.M-3519 of 2011) and FIR No.300 dated 20.5.2010 under Sections 294 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak (in Criminal Misc. No. M-4010 of 2011) , on the basis of compromise. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken up from Criminal Misc. No. M-3519 of 2011. The petitioner is a business man and the dispute arose with respondent No.2-complainant with regard to some business dealings. Some misunderstanding was created amongst both of them and FIR in question was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner also lodged FIR No.300 dated 20.5.2010 under Sections 294 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak. Thereafter better sense prevailed between the parties and they decided to settle the dispute amicably. The compromise has been effected as Annexure P-3. In compliance of order dated 3.2.2011, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal has sent a report verifying the contents of the compromise. As per this report, on 15.3.2011 both the parties appeared before the Court and recorded their separate statements to the effect that due to intervention of respectable of the locality, the misunderstanding between them has been settled down and they have no objection regarding quashing of FIRs lodged by them against each other. Compromise is Annexure P-3, which bears the signatures of both the parties. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-3519 of 2011 -3- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-3519 of 2011 -4- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-3519 of 2011 -5- 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.474 dated 1.6.2010 under Sections 294 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Line Karnal, District Karnal (Annexure P-1) (in CRM No.M-3519 of 2011) and FIR No.300 dated 20.5.2010 under Sections 294 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak (in Criminal Misc. No. M-4010 of 2011), are quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. Both the petition stand disposed of. April 26, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE