Criminal Misc. No. M-5812 of 2011 v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Mr. Ranjodh Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The petitioners have sought quashing of FIR No.94 dated 07.8.2010 under Sections 328 and 380 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran on the basis of compromise. The FIR was registered on the statement of complainant- Sukhwinder Kaur wife of Gurpartap Singh. As per FIR, she has two daughters and one son. Her husband is an agriculturist. Marriage of her elder daughter was fixed for 13.8.2010 with Angrej Singh of Nandpur. On the intervening night of 4/5.8.2010 her daughter Sharandjeep Kaur had mixed some intoxicant substance or some poisonous thing in the food of my younger daughter Manpreet Kaur, sister-in-law Harjit Kaur and mother-in-law Balwinder Kaur and with the help of Gursahib Singh son of Didar Singh and Sonu took about 24-25 tolas Gold, which was for marriage and cash Rs.2,50,000/-. Her husband found her unconscious and they were treated from the doctor of the village.

The Criminal Misc. No. M-5812 of 2011 -2- allegation is that Gursahib Singh and Sonu gave some intoxicants in the food and they have taken away gold and cash alongwith her daughter on the pretext of marriage. In the above background the FIR was registered. After investigation, the challan was presented in the Court. During the proceedings pending, the matter was compromised vide Annexure P-2 with the intervention of relatives. In compliance of order dated 24.2.2011 status report has been submitted by Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran. As per report statement of Sukhwinder Kaur-complainant has been recorded to the effect that Sharandeep Kaur her daughter has performed marriage with Gursahib Singh against their wishes. She had taken away 24-45 tolas of gold and cash of Rs.2,50,000/-. Now the matter has been compromised with the intervention of respectable without any duress, coercion or pressure and she do not want to pursue the case against the present petitioner.

Statement of accused Gursahib Singh also recorded to the same effect. 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.”

The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted by distorted Criminal Misc. No. M-5812 of 2011 -3- 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.

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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-5812 of 2011 -4- 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.

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.