Criminal Misc. No. M- 33162 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 33162 of 2010 Date of decision:- 17.03.2011 Iqbal Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. A.S. Syan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl.A.G. Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Ravinder Singh Rana, 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. 124 dated 19.5.2010 under Sections 447,380,420,467,468,471 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Shimlapuri, Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). As per FIR, complainant purchased a plot No.99 measuring 366-2/3 square yard situated at Grain Market backside Arora Cinema Gill Road, Ludhiana from original owner Sh. Jawand Singh son of Attar Singh son of Santokh Singh resident of 236-L Model Town, Ludhiana vide agreement dated 17.1.1990 for Rs.1,35,000/-. The complainant had constructed a house on this property in which his servant and labourer were living. On 02.2.2010 at about 10.30 PM the petitioners came to her house and started beating her servant and labourer and taken away iron gate and damged the walls and also taken away bags of Criminal Misc. No. M- 33162 of 2010 -2- cement, Balley, Tassley, Tangaria and Kassi (instruments of construction). Then complainant reported the matter to the police. Then accused Diwan Chand Mittal and Chaudhary Mehar Chand came to her and taken away Rs.50,000/- and original documents of plot and allotment letter for transfer in her name. In this background, FIR was registered against the petitioners. During the pendency of investigations in FIR, the parties have entered into compromise. Original compromise (Annexure A-1) has been filed in the Court. Affidavit on behalf of respondent No.2-complainant also filed. As per affidavit the parties have settled their dispute amicably due to intervention of respectable of the village and they have no grudge against each other and wants to live peacefully in the society. As per this, respondent No.2 has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed against the 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 33162 of 2010 -3- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 33162 of 2010 -4- 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. 124 dated 19.5.2010 under Sections 447,380,420,467,468,471 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Shimlapuri, Ludhiana, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. March 17, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE