Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha vs State Of Punjab And Another on 24 May, 2011
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Criminal Misc.No. M-28003 of 2010. 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Misc.No. M-28003 of 2010.
DECIDED ON : 24.5.2011.
Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha
and others Petitioners.
VERSUS
State of Punjab and another
Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI.
Present:- Mr.Rahul Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Munish Kumar, AAG, Punjab,
for respondent No.1 State.
Mr. Sumeet Puri, Advocate,
for respondent No.2 complainant.
RITU BAHRI,J.
Petitioners have sought quashing of FIR No. 110 dated 25.8.2009 under Sections 452, 323, 506, 148, 149 of IPC registered at Police Station Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise.
The complainant is a stamp vendor at Court complex Amloh also doing computer work usually in routine. On 19th August, 2009 one Sukhdev Singh along with one Sardar person came to his shop and asked him to reach in Gold Smith Bazar. Sukhdev Singh came to his shop and gave him fist blows. On raising alarm, one Bhupinder Singh and Sukhwinder Kaur i.e. his parents came there and rescued Criminal Misc.No. M-28003 of 2010. 2 him and as such a case was registered on 25.8.2009.
After investigation, challan was presented in Court. Charge was framed and the case was fixed for prosecution evidence. The parties have arrived at a compromise. Pursuant to the order of this Court on 31.1.2011, parties have appeared before the trial Court and made their respective statements affirming the compromise. A report has been received from Shri Raman Sharma, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Amloh in compliance of the order of this Court. The report shows that the statements made by the parties are genuine and valid ones.
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 Criminal Misc.No. M-28003 of 2010. 3 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 enmity 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot 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 :- Criminal Misc.No. M-28003 of 2010. 4
"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), 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), as well as in view of the status report submitted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amloh, FIR No.110 dated 25.08.2009 under Sections 452, 323, 506,148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Amloh District Fatehgarh Sahib(Annexure P-1) is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners.
The petition stands disposed of.
( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE 24.5.2011.
Anoop