Criminal Misc. No. M-9697 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-9697 of 2011 (O & M) Date of decision:-26.5.2011 Rajinder Singh @ Raju ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Amit Kohare, Advocate for respondent No.2. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) In compliance of order dated 30.3.2011 the petitioner has appeared before the trial Court and furnish his bail bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount. His bail bonds have been accepted vide order dated 08.4.2011. Petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No.71 dated 27.2.2004 under Sections 323, 324,34 IPC, registered at Police Station Nakodar, District Jalandhar on the basis of compromise. The FIR was registered on the statement of Sucha Singh that on 26.2.2004 at about 8 PM when he was going back from Village Khanpur on his tractor after dropping the labourers when he reached near the school at Village Criminal Misc. No. M-9697 of 2011 -2- Balla, then Barra son of Gurmukh and Bura son of Dola and Raju son of Ramu stopped his tractor. Accused Barra caught hold of him and Bura attacked him with his gandasi which hit him on his ear. Thereafter, accused Raju which hit him with his inverted datar on his head and ears. The complainant became unconscious and fell down. The incident was seen by Pardip son of Nachattar Singh. Cause of the fight was that three days ago the abovesaid accused had stopped the tractor of the complainant and directed him to work for Raju Jatt son of Bachan Singh and the complainant reported the matter to the Panchayat. In the above background the FIR has been registered. The trial Court vide order dated 10.3.2011 has acquitted accused Jaswant Singh and Sarabjit Singh, on the basis of compromise recorded before the trial Court. The offence was compounded and they have been acquitted. Since the petitioner has put in appearance before the trial Court and his bail bonds have been accepted, this Court has no hesitation to accept the compromise effected between the parties. Affidavit of Sucha Singh with regard to the compromise with petitioner Rajinder Singh @ Raju has also been filed in the Court today. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-9697 of 2011 -3- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-9697 of 2011 -4- 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 compromise effected between the parties, the order dated 10.3.2011 passed by the trial Court (Annexure P-4) and 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.71 dated 27.2.2004 under Sections 323, 324,34 IPC, registered at Police Station Nakodar, District Jalandhar, is quashed with all Criminal Misc. No. M-9697 of 2011 -5- consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. May 26, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE