Daljit Singh and Others vs State of Punjab and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—Daljit Singh, Sukhmander Singh, Ramandeep Singh and Jagsir Singh, the petitioners have brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of FIR No. 87 dated 3.5.2007 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Sadar Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib for an offence punishable under sections 148, 323, 324, 341, 342, 506 IPC read with section 149 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same on the basis of compromise (Annexure P2). While issuing notice of motion, the parties were directed to appear before learned Illaqa Magistrate on 30.1.2013 for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Malout has sent his report in this regard through learned District & Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib. He has reported that he had recorded the statements of the parties and has found that their statements are voluntary and without any influence or fear.

It is common knowledge that decisions rendered by the courts in adversarial system would not satisfy one or the other party. Sometimes, both the parties are left unsatisfied. The compromise arrived at between the parties washes away all the grievances of the warring factions and pave way for normal relations between them in future. Taking restoration of peace and harmonious relations between the parties and order in the society as the prime concerns of law, it has been held by this court in Dharambir Vs. State of Haryana, that a non compoundable matrimonial offence could be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties. However, the said decision left a gap as it did not cover the cases other than the cases for matrimonial offences. A Larger Bench of five Hon''ble Judges of this court in Kulwinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, took the following decision with regard to the other non-compoundable offences:-

The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court u/s 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar u/s 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited before me a latest decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Shiji @ Pappu and Others Vs. Radhika and Another, It was a case for an offence punishable u/s 394 IPC and was not less serious than the case in hand. In that case, FIR was quashed on the basis of compromise. The FIRs/complaints in non-compoundable offences could, therefore, be quashed on the basis of compromise. It is so because after compromise, no evidence supporting the prosecution is possible to come on the record and possibility of conviction of the accused becomes bleak. However, before accepting the petition and quashing the proceedings, the court has to satisfy itself that the compromise is just and fair in which no party is taking undue benefit. The compromise in hand not only satisfies the above said requirements, but also appears to be securing the ends of justice. I, therefore, find that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties without their being any pressure on anyone. Hence, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 87 dated 3.5.2007 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Sadar Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib for an offence punishable under sections 148, 323, 324, 341, 342, 506 IPC read with section 149 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 along with all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same is quashed qua the petitioners.