Criminal Misc. No. M- 987 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 987 of 2011 Date of decision:- 07.3.2011 Chatti Singh @ Satwinder Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. M.J.S. Bedi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl.A.G. Punjab for respondent No.1-State. None for respondent No.2 despite service. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.100 dated 27.9.2006, under Sections 325,324,323,452 IPC read with Section 34 IPC registered at Police Station Dayalpura, Bathinda (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). As per FIR, on 25.9.2006 at about 9 PM, petitioners came to the house of complainant armed with weapons and raised lalkara. When complainant reached to the gate of his house, Seera Singh-petitioner No.2 gave him a gandasa blow on his forehead, then Bhopa Singh-petitioner No.3 gave gandasa blow on the head of complainant. Seera Singh again attacked to the complainant with opposite side of the gandasa on his right arm. Chatti Singh- petitioner No.1 also gave gandasa blow on the head of complainant. Mahinder Singh-petitioner No.4 also attacked with gandasa and hit the opposite side of it to right arm of complainant. After raising alarm by the complainant, his wife Criminal Misc. No. M- 987 of 2011 -2- came there and saw the whole incident. In this background, the present FIR was registered against the petitioners. During pending proceedings, a compromise was arrived at between the parties. In compliance of order dated 13.1.2011, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Phul has sent a report verifying the contents of the compromise. As per this report, on -2.2.2011 complainant Veera Singh appeared before the trial Court and recorded his statement to the effect that due to intervention of panchayat and other respectables of the village he has entered into compromise with accused persons. The compromise is voluntarily and with free consent and he does not want to proceed with the FIR in question registered against the accused persons and has no objection if the same is quashed. Gurtej Singh, Panch of the Village also suffered a statement that Panchayat members and other respectables of the village have facilitated a compromise between the complainant Veera Singh and accused namely Chhatti Singh @ Satwinder Singh, Seera Singh @ Jasvir Singh, Bhappa Singh @ Lakhvir Singh and Mohinder Singh. After recording the statements of the parties, the compromise is held to be genuine. Learned counsel for the State stated that he has no instructions that any compromise has been effected between the parties. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 987 of 2011 -3- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 987 of 2011 -4- 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 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.100 dated 27.9.2006, under Sections 325,324,323,452 IPC read with Section 34 IPC registered at Police Station Dayalpura, Bathinda is quashed with all consequential Criminal Misc. No. M- 987 of 2011 -5- proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. March 07, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE