Ritu Bahri, J. - (1.) PRESENT petition has been filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 9 dated 22.1.2007 under Sections 323, 324, 148, 149 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Roopnagar, District Ropar (Annexure P -1) and all subsequent proceedings arising there from on the basis of compromise (Annexure P -2).
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that, on account of previous enmity between complainant party and main accused Kuldeep Singh, a scuffle took place on 21.1.2007 and DDR No. 21 dated 21.1.2007 was got registered against the private Respondents on the statement of Kuldeep Singh P.S. Sadar Roopnagar. However, on 22.1.2007, above referred FIR was got registered on the statement of Respondent No. 2 against Kuldeep Singh son of Jagdev Singh and Happy son of Jagdev Singh and the Petitioner besides two unknown persons. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that Petitioner is a student and he had gone abroad to do MBA course. An FIR No. 9 dated 22.1.2007 under Sections 323, 324, 148, 149 IPC at Police Station Sadar Roopnagar, District Ropar was registered against him. As per compromise, the FIR had been quashed qua co -accused Kuldeep Singh and Hardeep Singh vide order dated 21.12.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Roop Nagar. Petitioner Sukhdeep Singh @ Ghuka -accused No. 3 had gone abroad for doing MBA. He was declared as proclaimed offender vide order dated 1.7.2008. Vide order dated 14.1.2011, he was granted an opportunity to appear before the learned trial Court and furnish his bail bobnds.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed on record the certified copy of the order dated 20.1.2011, which is taken on record as Annexure A -1, vide which bail bonds / surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/ - with one surety in the like amount have been accepted. He was ordered to be released on bail. 6. Vide order dated 21.12.2008 (Annexure P -5) accused Kuldeep Singh and Hardeep Singh have been acquitted on account of the fact that they have settled the dispute in the Lol Adalat. And they were acquitted in view of the compounding of the offence. 7. Affidavits of Gulzar Singh and Harvinder Singh have been placed on record. They are present in the Court and they have been duly identified by their counsel. Affidavit of Gulzar Singh dated 8.3.2011 is Annexure R -1. As per this affidavit, the dispute had been amicably settled on 9.3.2007. He has no objection if the FIR is quashed against the Petitioner Sukhdeep Singh. It has been mutually agreed between the parties that they will not file any case against each other. 8. Affidavit of Harvinder Singh is Annexure R -2 dated 8.3.2011, in which he has stated that with the intervention of the respectables of the village the matter was compromised on 9.3.2007. Thereafter the offence was compounded against Kuldeep Singh and Happy vide order dated 21.1.2008 in Mega Lok Adalat, Ropar. He has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed against the Petitioner Sukhdeep Singh. It has been agreed that they will not file any case against each other. 9. Affidavit of the Petitioner Sukhdeep Singh @ Ghuka is Annexure R -3, in which he has stated that in view of the compromise dated 9.3.2007, the parties have agreed not to initiate any proceedings against complainant and injured relating to the case arising out of the said FIR. 10. 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 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 Ors. : (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 Section 320(9) if the Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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 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 under Section 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. 11. 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. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, 32008(2) R.C.R.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: 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 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 a re, cannot afford. 13. This Court in the case of Parambir Singh Gill v. Malkiat Kaur, 2010(1) RCR 256 has been pleased to lay down as under: Criminal Procedure Code, 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 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 14. 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. 9 dated 22.1.2007 under Sections 323, 324, 148, 149 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Roopnagar, District Ropar (Annexure P -1) and all subsequent proceedings arising there from on the basis of compromise is quashed qua Petitioners. 15. The petitions stand disposed of.;