Crl. Misc. No. M-3193 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-3193 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision :1.3.2011 Jarnail Singh & others .......... petitioners Versus State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present : Mr. Satbir Rathore, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** RITU BAHRI, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 01 dated 11.2.2010 under Sections 341, 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC and Section 325 & 326 IPC added lateron registered at Police Station Garhdiwala, District Hoshiarpur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. Brief facts of the case are :- Balbir Singh along with his wife on 5.2.2010 was going to Garhdiwala for making purchasing for his daughter's wedding, at about 5.30 P.M. when they reached near saw mill (Ara) of Kartar Crl. Misc. No. M-3193 of 2011 -2- Singh in between Garhdiwala and Mastiwal, six persons on three motor cycles were coming behind them. Out of them one known person asked him to stop. He stopped the motorcycle. In the meantime one black colour gypsy came from front side also stopped there, out of which Kulwant Singh s/o Gurmail Singh armed with Kirpan, Parminder Singh son of Talwinder Singh, armed with Datar and servant of Kulwant Singh, armed with Sota, Jarnail Singh son of Gurmail Singh armed with Datar and Sukha, armed with Datar, encircled Balbir Singh. Two unidentified persons stopped his wife. Kulwant Singh gave Kirpan blow on his head. When he tried to escape, Kirpan blow hit his thumb of left hand. Jarnail Singh @ Raja gave Datar blow, which hit his leg below the knee. Sukha gave dater blow on his left leg below the knee. Unknown person gave Sota blow on his right knee. Kulwant Singh gave two Kirpan blows on his right leg be,low the knee and Jarnial Singh @ Raja gave two Datar blows on his right leg below knee. In this process he received injuries on his leg etc. The accused ran away with their weapons on the motor cycles. In the above background the FIR was registered. However, during the pendency of the investigation, compromise was effected between the parties. As per the compromise the parties have amicably settled the dispute and do not wish to pursue with the criminal proceedings initiated in the FIR. An affidavit of respondent No.2/ complainant has been filed in Court, who is present in the Court and has been identified by his counsel and ASI Bhupinder Singh. As per the affidavit filed, the parties have entered into compromise with the intervention of Crl. Misc. No. M-3193 of 2011 -3- respectables without any pressure, threat or coercion. He has no objection if the FIR in question along with all consequential proceedings are quashed. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-3193 of 2011 -4- 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 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-3193 of 2011 -5- 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) 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.” The petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR under Section 326 IPC, which is non-compoundable offence. However, in view of the reply, this Court has no hesitation to quash the FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Crl. Misc. No. M-3193 of 2011 -6- 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), FFIR No. 01 dated 11.2.2010 under Sections 341, 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC and Section 325 & 326 IPC added lateron registered at Police Station Garhdiwala, District Hoshiarpur is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. 1.3.2011 (RITU BAHRI) 'sp' JUDGE