Harpreet Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Mr. Satnam Singh, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner. Mr. Munish Kumar, AAG, Punjab for respondent No. 1-State Mr. Rajvir Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) Crl. Misc. No. 6563 of 2011 Application is allowed as prayed for. Translated copy of compromise dated 04.01.2011 is taken on record in place of Annexure P2 which was translated copy of compromise dated 13.01.2011. Main Case The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.119 dated 15.10.2010 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 324, 323, 427, 435, 336, 148, 149 of IPC, registered at Police Station Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2), entered between the parties. Crl. Misc. No. M-2136 of 2011 -2- Brief facts of the case are that the parties are basically labourers and are earning their livelihood by doing labour work in the open market.

The issue between both the parties was regarding cleaning of rice straw, which was collected from the market. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and the present petitioners entered into a scuffle and as such respondent No. 2 received injuries and the present FIR (Annexure P1) was lodged at the instance of respondent No. 2 against the petitioners. However, during the pendency of the trial, both the parties arrived at a compromise with the intervention of respectables, relatives and friends and amicably settled the dispute between them. Now none of the parties wants to pursue the litigation against each other. Copy of compromise/Panchayati Rajinama dated 04.01.2011 is annexed as Annexure P2. In compliance of order dated 24.01.2011, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga has sent a report verifying the contents of the compromise. As per this report, on 18.03.2011, the complainant and petitioners appeared before the Magistrate and got their statements recorded to the effect that they have entered into compromise with their free will and volition, which is for their welfare and future benefits.

After recording the statements of the parties, the compromise is held to be valid and has been affected 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-2136 of 2011 -3- 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.”

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 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.

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 Crl. Misc. No. M-2136 of 2011 -4- 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-2136 of 2011 -5- compromise.