Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sherpuri And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 18 January, 2012
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Crl. Misc. No. M-7420 of 2011 (O&M) [ 1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-7420 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: January 18,2012
Sherpuri and others ..................................... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ....................... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri
1.To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Satish Goel, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Rajinder Mathur, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Krishan Lal, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
...
RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)
quashing of FIR No. 101 dated 27.9.2006 under Sections 452/323/34 IPC registered at Police Station Dhanaula, District Barnala (Annexure P-1) is sought on the basis of compromise dated 23.10.2010 (Annexure P-2).
Brief facts of the case as per the FIR are as under:-
"Stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and household lady. My marriage was Crl. Misc. No. M-7420 of 2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] solemnized with Jagdev Singh son of Behl Singh caste Bazigar resident of Bazigar Basti Dhanaula about 10 years back. I have 3 childrens out of which 2 are girls and one is boy, now I have to deliver a child. My husband's elder brother wife namely Bubbly wife of Tony Bazigar Basti Dhanaula was present in his home. Yesterday, at about 1'O clock in the day, Mokha Singh son of Khan Singh, sherpuri son of Charandas, Mika son of Arjan Singh, Dheera son of Khanpuri, Ashoki son of Chana Singh Caste Bazigar resident of Bazigar Basti Dhanaula forcibly entered into our house and told us that where are your men, then Sherpuri and Mika Singh has caught me from my arms, then Mokha Singh has given fist blow on my forehead and Ashoki given me fist blow on my left shoulder, I fell down, then Dheera has given kicks blow on my back and on my abdomen when I fallen down. My husband's brother wife Bubbly stood on one side due to fear and had seen he entire occurrence, then I and Bubbly raised noise "Marta- Marta", on hearing noise, our neighbor Mindho Kaur sife of Sewa Singh Bazigar resident of Bazigar Basti Dhanaula came to our house and told that leave her she is a lady and will die. In the Crl. Misc. No. M-7420 of 2011 (O&M) [ 3 ] meantime, all have left away from the spot, then after some time, my husband's brother (Jeth) Jeet Singh son of Gurnam Singh Bazigar resident of Bazigar Basti Dhanaula came to our house, who has seen us who after arranging the vehicle brought me to the Govt. Hospital Dhanaula where doctor has given me primary treatment and referred me to Govt. Hospital Barnala where my treatment is going on. Today, you have recorded my statement which is heard and correct. Action be taken. RTI Raj Kaur above, attested by Darshan Singh, ASI P.S.Dhanaula, dated 27.9.2006."
Both the parties are from Bazigar caste and have close relation with each other. Due to misunderstanding and misconception between the parties, the present case has been registered.
After the investigation, challan was presented. The charges were framed.
At the stage of trial, with the intervention of the respectables, a compromise has been effected between the parties (Annexure P-2). As per the compromise, the parties agreed on the following terms and conditions:-
1)That a FIR No. 104 dated 29.9.2006 was registered at Police Station Dhanaula, District Barnala under Section 295-A/506/148/149 IPC on Crl. Misc. No. M-7420 of 2011 (O&M) [ 4 ] the basis of the statement of Mirzapuri son of Surainpuri, however challan has been presented under Sections 295/297/298/147 IPC.
2)That a FIR No. 35 dated 2.5.2008 was registered at P.S.Dhanaula, District Barnala u/s 452/323/34 IPC on the basis of the statement of Gurmail Singh son of Tehal Singh.
3)That a FIR No. 66 dated 20.7.2009 was registered at P.S. Dhanaula, District Barnala u/s 452/295-A/323/380/148/149 IPC on the basis of the statement of Kewal puri son of Mirzapuri, resident of Bazigar Basti, Dhanaula, however challan has been presented u/s 295/452/323/148/149 IPC.
4)That a FIR No. 101 dated 27.9.2006 was registered at P.S. Dhanaula, District Barnala u/s 452/323/341 IPC on the basis of the statement of Raj Kaur wife of Jagdev Singh, however, challan has been presented u/s 323/148/149 IPC, subsequently JMIC, Barnala summoned the party No.4 accused by adding section 452 IPC now the parties are facing trial u/s 452/323/148/149 IPC.
5)That the parties are belonging to Bazigar Caste and are close relatives and living in neighbourhood and are having joint walls in the Crl. Misc. No. M-7420 of 2011 (O&M) [ 5 ] Bazigar Basti.
6)That now with the intervention of respectable and relatives of both parties, have compromised the matter and there have no grudge/grievance against each other and now parties want to live in peace for future and party No.1 and party No.3 had agreed to withdraw the FIR No. 104 dated 29.9.06, FIR No. 35 dated 2.5.08, FIR No. 66 dated 20.07.09 and FIR No. 101 dated 27.09.06 all registered at Police Station Dhanaula, District Barnala.
7)That the above mentioned compromise is entered between the parties without any coerce/undue influence or force and on the basis of free will of the parties and no party have any pressure upon them for entering into the above mentioned compromise.
8)That party No.1 and 3 are also agreed to appear before the Hon'ble High Court if the need arises for quashing of the above said FIRs registered at Police Station Dhanaula, District Barnala and party No.1 and 3 have no objection if the above said FIRs are quashed against the party No. 2 and 4.
9)That above mentioned compromise is read over Crl. Misc. No. M-7420 of 2011 (O&M) [ 6 ] to the parties after admitting it to be correct the parties have appended their signatures/thumb impression. Dated 23.10.10.
The affidavit dated 23.5.2011 of respondent No.2- Raj Kaur, annexed with the compromise, is to the same effect.
In compliance of the order passed by this Court on 26.8.2011 report of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala, has been received. As per the report, statement of the parties was recorded to the effect that they have compromised the matter with each other and do not want to proceed further with the case and that they belong to same community.
As per the status report, this Court is of the opinion that the compromise is genuine and valid and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.
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, Crl. Misc. No. M-7420 of 2011 (O&M) [ 7 ] (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 amity and reduces friction, then it Crl. Misc. No. M-7420 of 2011 (O&M) [ 8 ] 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-7420 of 2011 (O&M) [ 9 ] 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) R.C.R. (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 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 Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), FIR No. 101 dated 27.9.2006 under Sections 452/323/34 IPC registered at Police Station Dhanaula, District Barnala (Annexure P-1) is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising Crl. Misc. No. M-7420 of 2011 (O&M) [ 10 ] therefrom qua petitioners.
The petition stands disposed of.
18.1.2012 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE