Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunita Devi And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 25 February, 2011
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Criminal Misc. No. M- 4041 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M- 4041 of 2011
Date of decision:- 25.2.2011
Sunita Devi and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present:- Mr. Pardeep Aolath, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG Haryana
for respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Parmod Parmar, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
RITU BAHRI J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 18 dated 15.1.2011 under Sections 186, 332 and 353 IPC registered at Police Station City, Narnaul (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).
Learned counsel for the State on instructions from ASI Naval Kishore states that the matter has been compromised between the parties. Complainant is present in the Court and she has been identified by the said ASI Naval Kishore. Reply on behalf of Additional Superintendent of Police, Narnaul also filed, same is taken on record. As per this reply, respondent No.2- complainant has tendered her affidavit dated 02.2.2011 before the investigating agency and after due verification the parties have no grouse with each other and are living peacefully.
Criminal Misc. No. M- 4041 of 2011 -2-
As per affidavit of the complainant, she is working as Staff Nurse in General Hospital, Narnaul. The complainant has stated that in a delivery case a baby was born and complainant has argument with the husband of patient Sunita namely Vivek Kumar. Sunita and Vivek Kumar scuffled with the complainant and thereafter she got registered an FIR No.18 dated 15.1.2011 to Police Station Narnaul against Sunita and Vivek and now she has compromised the matter due to intervention of respectables of the locality and does not wish to pursue any action in the FIR in question against the petitioners.
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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 4041 of 2011 -3- 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 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- Criminal Misc. No. M- 4041 of 2011 -4- 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 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. 18 dated 15.1.2011 under Sections 186, 332 and 353 IPC registered at Police Station City, Narnaul, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners.
The petition stands disposed of.
February 25, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE