Punjab-Haryana High Court
Seeta And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 June, 2011
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Criminal Misc. No. M-5886 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-5886 of 2011
Date of decision:-03.6.2011
Seeta and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present:- Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab
for respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Manoj Kumar Pundir, Advocate
for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
RITU BAHRI J.(Oral)
The petitioners have sought quashing of FIR No.115 dated 14.10.2010 under Sections 323,324,34 IPC and Section 326 IPC added later on vide Rapat No.22 dated 22.10.2010 at Police Station Raman, District Bathinda on the basis of compromise Annexures P-2 to P-4.
The FIR was registered on the complaint of complainant Satnam Singh on the allegation that on 13.10.2010 at about 7 PM his uncle's son Kashmir Singh son of Lakha and his aunt's son Gurpreet Singh and Gurpreet Singh son of Lakhwinder were sitting on the culbert near the house of Seeta Singh son of Nathu Singh. Then the petitioners have caused injuries to them. The allegation in the FIR is that the petitioners were nursing grudge against the complainant, who had objected to the petitioners to sit on the culbert near the house of Seeta Singh.
Criminal Misc. No. M-5886 of 2011 -2-
At the stage of investigation, parties have entered into compromise with the intervention of respectable and both the families of the parties. In compliance of order dated 24.2.2011 status report has been submitted by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo. As per status report, statements of complainant Satnam Singh and injured Gurpreet Singh and Kashmir Singh were recorded to the effect that with the intervention of respectable of the village as well as Hardev Singh ex-Sarpanch, they have compromised the matter with accused Seeta Singh, Meeta Singh and Jassa Singh. Compromise is Ex.CA. Statements of accused Seeta Singh, Meeta Singh and Jassa 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."
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 Criminal Misc. No. M-5886 of 2011 -3- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-5886 of 2011 -4- 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 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.115 dated 14.10.2010 under Sections 323,324,34 IPC and Section 326 IPC added later on vide Rapat No.22 dated 22.10.2010 at Police Station Raman, District Bathinda, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners.
The petition stands disposed of.
June 03, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE