Madan Lal and Another vs Jatinder Pal

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—Madan Lal and Dicky, the petitioners have brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr. P.C., for quashing of Criminal Complaint No. 213 dated 26.07.2010 (Annexure P1) filed by Jatinder Pal Singh, the respondent for an offence punishable under 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same on the basis of compromise. While issuing notice of motion, the parties were directed to appear before learned Illaqa Magistrate on 15.12.2012 for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur has sent his report in this regard through learned District & Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. He has reported that he had recorded the statements of 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 parties and pave the way for normal relations between them in coming time. 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.

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 Criminal Complaint No. 213 dated 26.07.2010 (Annexure P1) filed by Jatinder Pal Singh, the respondent for an offence punishable under 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 along with all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same is quashed.