Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sikander Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 8 March, 2011
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Criminal Misc. No. M- 36335 of 2010 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M- 36335 of 2010
Date of decision:- 08.03.2011
Sikander Singh and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present:- Mr. R.S. Sandhu, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab
for respondent No.1-State.
RITU BAHRI J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.157 dated 27.11.2010 under Sections 307, 148 and 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Moga (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise.
As per allegations in the FIR, complainant was attacked by the petitioners-accused on 26.11.2010 at 10.30 PM, when the complainant was in the plot adjoining his house. The accused demolished the joint wall of his plot and on seeing him they raised a lalkara and Sikander Singh fired a shot from his licensed revolver, which hit the complainant on his right arm. Thereafter, Sikander Singh fired two more shots in the air. After raising alarm, younger brother of complainant Jaswant Singh and nephew Jagdeep Singh son of Jagrup Singh came and the accused ran away. During pendency of investigations, a compromise has been effected between the parties and report was sought from the trial Court with regard to validity or otherwise of the compromise. Criminal Misc. No. M- 36335 of 2010 -2-
In compliance of order dated 14.1.2011, a report has been submitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Moga. After going through the contents of FIR that Sikander Singh had fired a shot from his revolver, which hit the complainant on his right arm and thereafter Sikander Singh fired two more shots in the air. Complainant has not suffered any grievous injury and since Sikander Singh had fired two more shots in the air, he did not have any intention to kill him, therefore, no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out against Sikander Singh. The complainant has stated before the Additional Sessions Judge that he has entered into compromise voluntarily and the fact that the petitioners and complainant are neighbours staying in the same village.
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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 36335 of 2010 -3- 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 vs. State of Punjab 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429 has examined a case Criminal Misc. No. M- 36335 of 2010 -4- 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 status report and 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.157 dated 27.11.2010 under Sections 307, 148 and 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Moga, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners.
The petition stands disposed of.
March 08, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE