Gurbachan Singh and Others vs State of Punjab and Another

Ritu Bahri, J.—Present petition has been filed u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No. 191 dated 6.11.2010 u/s 452, 324, 323, 427, 148, 149 IPC and lateron added 326 IPC registered at Police Station Dharamkot, District Moga and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.

As per the contents of the FIR, a fight had taken place outside the house of Gurjit Singh, who was bursting the crackers on the night of Diwali. At about 7.30 P.M. Gurbachan Singh son of Darbara Singh, armed with Kirpan, Jagdish Singh son of Lal Singh, armed with Kirpan, Ram Singh son of Lal singh, armed with Toki, Mohan Singh son of Darbara Singh, armed with "Musla Dah" and Mandeep Kaur wife of Mohan Singh, armed with Danda came to his house and raised a Lalkara, while the complainant was entering in his house. On hearing noise, Nirmal Singh son of Mohinder Singh attracted to the place of occurrence. Gurbahcan Singh, Jagdish Singh, Ram Singh, Mohan Singh and Mandeep Kaur entered into the house of the complainant. The above referred accused persons caused injuries to him with their respective weapons. The complainant raised an alarm. He went in his brother''s house and all the accused pulled him out from there and beat him up and thereafter the accused ran away along with their respective weapons from the spot. In this background, the abovesaid FIR was registered.

During the investigation, a compromise was effected between the parties. As per the contents of the compromise, with the intervention of the respectables of the village, the parties have compromised the matter amicably without any pressure and coercion. The complainant has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

The original compromise arrived at between the parties is taken on record as Annexure A-1.

Affidavit of complainant has been filed in the Court through his counsel and he has been duly identified by his counsel.

Learned State counsel on instructions from HC Mohinder Singh has stated that out of seven injuries on the person of complainant Gurjit Singh, injuries No. 3 and 7 were declared as grievous and they have been attributed to Petitioners No. 1 and 5.

Report from the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga has been received. As per this report, complainant and accused/Petitioners appeared in the Court and their statements have been recorded that they have arrived at a compromise. It has been observed that the compromise is valid and genuine.

After going through the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that the allegations against t he Petitioners is 326 IPC, which is non-compoundable offence. Following the law settled by Hon''ble the Supreme Court, that in a non-compoundable offence if a compromise is arrived at between the parties, the criminal proceedings can be quashed.

Broad guidelines have been laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. 2007 (3) RCR (cri.) 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:

In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney Vs. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and Others, , 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.

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 Code of Criminal Procedure, or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

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 u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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 u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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 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 v. State of Punjab 2008 (2) R.C.R. (Cri) 429. has examined a case where quashing was sought of an FIR u/s 406 IPC being non-compoundable. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that:

No useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise - There was no possibility of conviction.

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.

Keeping the matter alive with no possibility of conviction is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford.

This Court in the case of Parambir Singh Gill v. Malkiat Kaur 2010 (1) RCR (Cri) 256, has been pleased to lay down as under:

Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 320-Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sections 3 and 4- Non Compoundable offence- of the seven accused, complainant entering into compromise with one accused-Proceedings qua one accused only quashed by High Court in exercise of inherent power u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure.

Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (supra), Parambir Singh Gill v. Malkiat Kaur (supra) and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. (supra), FIR No. 191 dated 6.11.2010 u/s 452, 324, 323, 427, 148, 149 IPC and lateron added 326 IPC registered at Police Station Dharamkot, District Moga and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise is quashed qua Petitioners.

The petitions stand disposed of.