Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jasvir Singh Jassi And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 1 February, 2012
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Crl. Misc. No. M-29972 of 2010 (O&M) [ 1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-29972 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: February 1,2012
Jasvir Singh Jassi and others ............................. Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ........................ 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. A.P.Kaushal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Abhishek Chautala, AAG, Punjab
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Gagandeep Singh Sahota, Advocate
for respondents No.2 & 3.
...
RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)
Quashing of FIR No. 134 dated 14.7.2010 under Sections 323, 324, 341, 326, 148 & 149 IPC registered at Police Station Morinda City, District Rupnagar(Annexure P-1) is sought on the basis of compromise dated 24.9.2010 (Annexure P-3).
The FIR was recorded as per the statement of Najar Singh-complainant. The complainant is a driver of Bus Crl. Misc. No. M-29972 of 2010 (O&M) [ 2 ] No. PB-23F-5587 which belongs to M/s Kumar Bus Service, Sirhind. On 14.7.2010 he took a bus to Kharar and when the bus reached Morinda, another bus belonging to Syndicate Bus Service came from Mohali to the Bus Stand Morinda. A scuffle took place between the Incharge of the Syndicate Bus who started abusing the Conductor of complainant's bus Harpreet Sharma. The fight was stopped by the intervention of the passengers. Subsequently, on his reaching to Malerkotla the driver of the Syndicate Bus parked his bus in front of the bus of the complainant and 8-10 boys got off from the bus with sticks and rods in their hands. The complainant was pulled out of the bus and was given punches. Jassi gave a kirpan blow to the complainant and thereafter they attacked the Conductor Harpreet Sharma. The complainant and his Conductor were taken to the Rural Hospital, Morinda, for treatment. Jassi and his companions fled away on their bus to Sirhind. In this background the FIR was registered.
A cross case i.e. DDR No. 17 dated 14.7.2010 under Sections 323, 324, 148 & 149 IPC has also been registered at Police Station Morinda City, District Rupnagar (Annexure P2).
Before presentation of the challan, with the intervention of the respectables, the matter has been amicably settled. Annexure P3 is the compromise. Crl. Misc. No. M-29972 of 2010 (O&M) [ 3 ] In compliance of the order dated 25.5.2011 status report has been submitted by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar, dated 27.7.2011. As per this report, the statement of the complainant Najar Singh son of Gurmail Singh and Raman Sharma who also sustained injuries was recorded. They stated that with the intervention of the respectables they have compromised the dispute with the accused persons and the compromise is without any pressure, threat or coercion. Statement of the accused persons was also recorded which is to the same effect. ASI Bhagwant Singh, Investigating Officer, appeared and made a statement that this case was got registered by Najar Singh against the accused persons with regard to injuries on the persons of Najar Singh and Raman Sharma. The accused persons alleged that some injuries on their persons were caused by Najar Singh and Raman Sharma. Najar Singh and Raman Sharma have not been challaned and the challan has been presented on the accused persons only.
In view of the above, the compromise is held to be genuine and fair and no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the trial.
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 Crl. Misc. No. M-29972 of 2010 (O&M) [ 4 ] 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 Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
28. The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of Crl. Misc. No. M-29972 of 2010 (O&M) [ 5 ] 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-29972 of 2010 (O&M) [ 6 ] 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) 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. Crl. Misc. No. M-29972 of 2010 (O&M) [ 7 ] vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), FIR No. 134 dated 14.7.2010 under Sections 323, 324, 341, 326, 148 & 149 IPC registered at Police Station Morinda City, District Rupnagar (Annexure P-1) is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners.
The petition stands disposed of.
1.2.2012 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE