Criminal Misc. No. M- 2826 of 2011 v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab 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.56 dated 07.7.2002 under Sections 458,354,323,506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC (subsequently deleted Section 458 and added Section 452 IPC), registered at Police Station Machiwara (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). As per FIR, complainant alongwith his wife and two daughters went to the house of his brother-in-law namely Manoj Kumar Mehto in the season of sowing rice. During the stay in the house of Manoj Kumar on 5/6-7-2002 in the intervening night he heard the noise of her wife, who was sleeping on the floor alongwith two daughters. After switching on the light, complainant found that Harpreet Singh (petitioner No.1) son of Surinder Singh, Caste SC had hugged her wife from her breast. When the complainant tried to get free her wife from the hands of Harpreet, then accused Harpreet Singh raised lalkara. After hearing his Criminal Misc. No. M- 2826 of 2011 -2- lalkara Paramjeet @ Pamma alongwith gandasi, his younger brother Bhupinder alias Bhinda alongwith stick and youngest brother of them namely Shingara Singh alias Gola alongwith Kuhari came inside and caused injuries to complainant. After raising noise, uncle of complainant namely Tapeshwar Mehto alongwith his family came to rescue him. Then the accused persons also caused injuries to them. Then after hearing their noise Ganesh Kumar Mehto and Manoj Kumar reached there. After that accused ran away from the spot after giving threat to kill them. After that the injured were got admitted in Civil Hospital Machiwara for treatment. In this background, the FIR was registered. During the pending proceedings, compromise has been arrived at between the parties due to intervention of respectable of the locality. In compliance of order dated 28.1.2011, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Samrala has sent a report verifying the contents of the compromise. As per this report, on 17.2.2011 complainant Lalita Devi and Lal Bahadur appeared before the trial Court and recorded their statement to the effect that they have compromised the matter with their free consent without pressure and in view of good future and harmony with the accused persons. As per report, petitioners Harpreet Singh, Bhupinder Singh and Shingara Singh are stated to be agree with the statement of Lalita Devi and Lal Bahadur Whereas petitioner Paramjit Singh turned up before the Court on 7.3.2011 and admitted the statement of Lalita Devi and Lal Bahadur to be correct. Original compromise has been placed on record today. However, in the present FIR Tapeshwar, Sushila Devi and Dinesh Kumar have also been injured and witnesses, who have not compromised the matter with the accused persons. Hence, compromise has not been effected with all injured persons, involved in the occurrence, and they have not recorded their statements. As per judgment Parambir Singh Gill versus Malkiat Kaur RCR Criminal Misc. No. M- 2826 of 2011 -3- (Criminal) 2010(1) 256, out of seven accused, complainant entered into compromise with one accused and proceedings qua that one accused only quashed by High Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 2826 of 2011 -4- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 2826 of 2011 -5- 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) and in view of Parambir Singh Gill versus Malkiat Kaur (supra) FIR No.56 dated 07.7.2002 under Sections 458,354,323,506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC (subsequently deleted Section 458 and added Section 452 IPC), registered at Police Station Machiwara is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners Harpreet Singh, Paramjeet Singh, Bhupinder Singh and Shingara Singh. The petition stands disposed of. April 04, 2011 Vijay Asija ( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE