Criminal Misc. No. M- 867 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 867 of 2011 Date of decision:- 11.03.2011 Kartar Singh Sodhi @ Tinu Sodhi and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. R.S. Rangpuri, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG Punjab. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the DDR No.27 dated 15.1.2009 under Sections 324,323,148,149 IPC later on added Section 326 IPC, registered at Police Station City, Muktsar, District Muktsar in FIR No.9 dated 15.1.2009 under Sections 452,324,148,149 and 427 IPC, registered at Police Station City, Muktsar, District Muktsar on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3). As per FIR, the complainant had been doing the work of Halwai. On 15.1.2009 at 11 AM when complainant passed the temple of Hanuman, then Happy Sodhi armed with Kirpan, Bittu Sodhi armed with Gandasi, Sonu Sodhi armed with Kirpan and Kaka Singh caste Mazbi Sikh of Muktsar came in front of the complainant on motorcycles and blocked his way. Then 7-8 persons also came there, who were companions of accused persons. They block his way by saying that the brother of complainant Nasib Singh quarreled with them and in revenge Happy gave a kirpan blow to right leg of complainant, then Bittu Sodhi Criminal Misc. No. M- 867 of 2011 -2- gave gandasi blow to his right leg and Sonu Sodhi gave kirpan blow on the one side of his left leg, Kaka gave gandasi blow on his back. Then Tinu Sodhi gave his gandasi blow to his left leg from the reverse side. On making noise, complainant's Maasi Malo widow of Bhajan Lal, Bholi wife of Gaudu and Sarban Mahajan and Sheru Mahajan came at the spot. After that accused ran away from the spot, thereafter complainant was admitted in Civil Hospital, Muktsar for treatment. On this background, the complaint against the accused persons was registered. During pendency of the investigations, the parties entered into compromise (Annexure P-3) As per contents of compromise with the intervention of respectables, both the parties have entered into compromise and do not wish to pursue against each other. Affidavits of four injured namely Amarjit Singh, Eib Khan, Satpal and Kaka Singh have been filed alongwith the petition. In compliance of order dated 17.1.2011, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Muktsar Sahib has sent a report verifying the contents of the compromise. As per this report, parties appeared before the Court and stated that they have compromised on 10.12.2010 and the said compromise is with their free will and without any pressure. Statement of complainant Eib @ Eib Khan was recorded separately on 07.3.2010 to the effect that he has compromised the matter with the accused on 10.12.2010 with his free will and without any pressure. 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 another 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 for quashing the prosecution when parties entered into compromise. The Full Bench has observed that this power of Criminal Misc. No. M- 867 of 2011 -3- 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 be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any Criminal Misc. No. M- 867 of 2011 -4- 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 Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (supra) and Criminal Misc. No. M- 867 of 2011 -5- 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), DDR No.27 dated 15.1.2009 under Sections 324,323,148,149 IPC later on added Section 326 IPC, registered at Police Station City, Muktsar, District Muktsar in FIR No.9 dated 15.1.2009 under Sections 452,324,148,149 and 427 IPC, registered at Police Station City, Muktsar, District Muktsar, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. March 11, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE