Arjun v. State of Punjab & Anr.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present- Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab Mr. H.S. Tulli, Advocate for Mr. Jagnahar Singh, Advocate for respondent no.2. Crl. Misc. No.M- 9668 of 2011 & Crl. Misc. No.M-16573 of 2011 --2-- VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. The above mentioned two petitions have been brought by Arjun and Bhupinder Singh, the petitioners under the provisions of section 482 Cr. P.C., for quashing of FIR No. 17 dated

05.03.2011, registered at Police Station Dugri, District Ludhiana, for an offence punishable under sections 148, 307 and 427 read with section 149 IPC, and sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act along with all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same, on the basis of compromise/affidavit (Annexure P-2). In this case, the parties had been directed to appear before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise. Inderjit Singh, the complainant had appeared before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and made a statement. Bhupinder Singh and Arjun Singh, the petitioners have also appeared there and made statements. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana through learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana has sent the aforesaid statements in original with his report on the compromise. He has submitted in his report that the compromise is genuine and brought about without any pressure on the parties.

Crl. Misc. No.M- 9668 of 2011 & Crl. Misc. No.M-16573 of 2011 --3-- Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana has submitted two reports and in the second report, he has clarified the fact that the petitioner Bhupinder Singh is not a proclaimed offender. The contested decisions made by the courts leave scars on the persons of either party to the case. The compromise is the form of decision which does not leave any such scar. Compromise not only brings peace and harmony between the parties to a dispute but also restores tranquility in the society. Taking restoration of peace and harmonious relations between the parties and order in the society as the prime concerns of law, it has been held by this court in Dharambir Vs. State of Haryana, 2005 (3) RCR (Criminal) 426 that a non compoundable matrimonial offence could be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties. However, the said decision left a gap as it did not cover the cases other than the cases for matrimonial offences.

A Larger Bench of five Hon`ble Judges of this court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 took the following decision with regard to the other non- compoundable offences:- Crl. Misc. No.M- 9668 of 2011 & Crl. Misc. No.M-16573 of 2011 --4--

29. The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C.which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non- compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.

In view of the aforesaid decision of this court, the FIRs/complaint in non-compoundable offences could be quashed on the basis of compromise. It is so because after compromise between the parties, no evidence supporting the prosecution is possible to come on the record and possibility of conviction of the accused becomes bleak.