Crl. Misc. No. M-4537 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-4537 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 23.05.2011 Prem Chand @ Prem Singh and others ......Petitioners versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate for the petitioners. Sh. P.S. Virk,, D.A.G., Haryana for respondent No. 1-State **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.159 dated 03.12.2006(Annexure P-1) under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Chhachhrauli, District Yamunanagar and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 05.02.2011 (Annexure P-2). As per F.I.R, on 01.12.2006 at about 6 P.M., the complainant was sitting in his shop along with his son. At that time, Prem Singh, Satbir, Raj came on their tractor and stopped their tractor in front of the shop of the complainant and while abusing the complainant, they entered into his shop and attacked. Rajesh snatched the mobile of the complainant while Dharamveer and Satbir was carrying Danda in their hand, Prem Singh was carrying Kirpan and they entered into the shop of the complainant and Crl. Misc. No. M-4537 of 2011 (O&M) -2- beaten him mercilessly and caused injuries to him. In the above background, F.I.R was registered against the petitioners. As per the MLR report of respondent No. 2, prima facie case of commission of offence under Sections 323, 324, 148, 149, 452, 506 of IPC was made out against the petitioners. In the inquiry made by the police, Satbir was found innocent and he was placed in column No. 2. On completion of investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was presented in the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate on 22.10.2007. Thereafter, the trial Court framed the charges against the accused petitioner on 29.11.2007 and 8 witnesses out of total 9 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Now the case is fixed for 30.05.2011 for remaining prosecution evidence. During the pendency, both the parties have arrived at a compromise (Annexure P2). As per compromise, there were five criminal cases pending in different courts at Jagadhari out of which four cases have been compromised and compounded. Since the complainant party and accused persons are residents of the same village, so, in order to prevail harmonious relations between them, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties with the intervention of the respectable members of the biradri and villagers whereby all the disputes between them have been pacified and come to an end. Now, there is no bone of contention between them. Now the complainant does not want to pursue with the proceedings any longer. The parties have further undertaken not to file any kind of litigation in future and the parties have set their hands on the compromise. Compromise is Annexure P-2. Crl. Misc. No. M-4537 of 2011 (O&M) -3- In compliance of order dated 14.02.2011, Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.)- cum-JMIC, Yamunanagar at Jagadhari has sent its report. As per report, the statements of complainant and the accused persons namely Prem Singh, Raj Kumar, Rajesh, Ran Singh and Dharambir were recorded. As per statement of the complainant, he has admitted the factum of compromise with the accused party. He has also stated that he has signed the written compromise on 05.02.2011 and has no grudges against any of the accused. Accused have also stated in their statements that they have compromised the matter with the complainant. In view of the statements made by the accused, 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-4537 of 2011 (O&M) -4- 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 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429 has examined a Crl. Misc. No. M-4537 of 2011 (O&M) -5- 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.159 dated 03.12.2006(Annexure P-1) under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Chhachhrauli, District Yamunanagar , is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 23, 2011 G.Arora