Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parminder Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 27 January, 2012
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Crl. Misc. No. M-18128 of 2011 (O&M) [ 1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-18128 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: January 27,2012
Parminder Singh 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. G.N.Malik, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Abhishek Chautala, AAG, Punjab
for respondent No.1.
...
RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)
Quashing of FIR No. 147 dated 19.6.2010 under Sections 450, 451, 294, 506, 148, 149 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, Jagraon, Distt. Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) is sought on the basis of compromise dated 19.5.2011 (Annexure P-2).
As per the FIR, the complainant was working as Driver in the Punjab Roadways, Jagraon, and is retired from service. The allegation was that the petitioner No.3 went to Crl. Misc. No. M-18128 of 2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] his house to meet his daughter Baljinder Kaur who complained to him that Gurkirat Singh was following her. Thereafter, the complainant along with the Sarpanch Chand Singh and other respectable of the village had gone to the house of Gurkirat Singh to talk to his parents. On the fateful night Gurkirat Singh along with 3-4 friends came to his house armed with Datar and attacked his son Gurpreet Singh with an intention to kill him. The complainant fired a shot from his gun. At this Gurkirat Singh fled away from the spot by jumping the wall and went to the house of Joginder Singh. At this time, four boys came on two motor cycles and Gurkirat Singh fled away with them. At the time of jumping the wall the weapon of Gurkirat Singh fell down. In this background, the present FIR is registered.
During the stage of investigation, a compromise was effected between the parties on 19.5.2011 (Annexure P-2). Gurmit Singh has stated that the incident took place at night and due to some misunderstanding he has mentioned the names of all the accused. He stated that Parminder Singh etc. have no concern with the said FIR and he has no objection if the FIR is quashed.
In compliance of the order dated 3.6.2011 status report has been submitted by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon, dated 1.8.2011. The statement of the complainant Gurmit Singh has been recorded on 3.6.2011. Crl. Misc. No. M-18128 of 2011 (O&M) [ 3 ] He has stated that with the intervention of the respectables of the village a compromise has been effected between the parties. This compromise is for the benefit of both the families. Statement of accused Gurkirat Singh has been recorded to the same effect.
Counsel for the petitioner had informed the Court that daughter of Gurmit Singh, complainant, has got married to Gurkirat Singh, petitioner No.3 during the pendency of trial.
Counsel for the State, on instruction from HC Ramji Dass has stated that this fact is not denied. Petitioner No.1 Parminder Singh has since expired on 11.12.2011. The families have respected the relationship of Gurkirat Singh and daughter of the complainant.
In this background and in the interest of peace and harmony and keeping in view that a compromise is effected between the parties, no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the investigation.
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 :-
Crl. Misc. No. M-18128 of 2011 (O&M) [ 4 ] "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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-18128 of 2011 (O&M) [ 5 ] 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-18128 of 2011 (O&M) [ 6 ] 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. vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), FIR No. 147 dated 19.6.2010 under Sections 450, 451, 294, 506, 148, 149 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, Jagraon, Distt. Ludhiana Crl. Misc. No. M-18128 of 2011 (O&M) [ 7 ] (Annexure P-1) is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner.
The petition stands disposed of.
27.1.2012 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE