Crl. Misc. No. M-36988 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-36988 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 07.04.2011 Harbhajan Singh and others ......Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr.J.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Sh. Munish Kumar, A.A.G., Punjab for respondent No. 1-State Mr. Rajvir Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.55 dated 06.03.2008(Annexure P-1) under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station Division No. 5, Ludhiana, Punjab and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise 17.11.2010 (Annexure P-2). Before adverting in to the merits of the case, it would first be necessary to point out the contents of the F.I.R. As per F.I.R, the applicant is general power of attorney of Sh. Harpreet Singh s/o Sh. Lal Singh r/o Village Gill Ludhiana and on his direction the applicant have special power of attorney bearing Vasika No. 530 dated 19.04.2005 of Sh. Harbhajan Singh s/o Piara Singh regarding land comprised in Khasra No. 1598 khata No. 2642/3425 as per jamabandi of the year 2000-2001 situated at gill No. 2 Crl. Misc. No. M-36988 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Ludhiana for land measuring DB 3B-10B 7-E approximately 522 sq yards. The accused Harbhajan Singh in criminal connivance with other accused and also with the revenue officials sold the said land/property, vide sale deed bearing vasika No. 2529 dated 02.05.2005 by mentioning Khasra No. 1599 and 1598 in the sale deed. The accused have in collusion with each other forged and fabricated the above sale deed regarding the prime land comprised in Khasra no. 1599 also. The accused even got mutation sanctioned regarding the sale of land comprised in Khasra No. 1598 and 1599 legally. In the above background, F.I.R was registered against the petitioners. However, during the pendency of the trial, both the parties arrived at a compromise with the intervention of the respectables of both the parties. As per the compromise (Annexure P2), matter has been compromised and now complainant does not want to pursue the case against the above said F.I.R against the petitioners and has also no objection if the same is cancelled by the competent authority. Petitioners also undertake not to file any case against the complainant for lodging the above said F.I.R in any manner. Compromise has been effected with the free will of both the parties without undue pressure or influence. Original compromise is also taken on record as Annexure A-1. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that respondent No. 2 is residing in Canada and compromise has been effected by the father of the complainant since he has been authorised to do so by Power of Attorney, which has been placed on record. The complainant does not wish to pursue the above F.I.R against the petitioners and has no objection if the F.I.R is Crl. Misc. No. M-36988 of 2010 (O&M) -3- quashed. Counsel for respondent No. 2 appeared in the Court and filed an affidavit of the complainant to the effect that the compromise has been effected between the parties and respondent No. 2 has no objection, if the above said F.I.R is cancelled or quashed. So, it appears that the compromise is voluntarily and without any pressure. Copy of compromise 17.11.2010 is annexed as Annexure P-2. As per the affidavit filed by father of respondent No. 2, the matter has been compromised and bears the signatures of the deponent and the same was reduced into writing with the consent of the complainant without any compulsion etc. The affidavit and power of attorney of respondent No. 2 is taken on record as Annexure A-1 & A-2. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-36988 of 2010 (O&M) -4- 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 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 emity 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 ratio of the Full Bench judgment is a special reference which 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. Crl. Misc. No. M-36988 of 2010 (O&M) -5- 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 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 :- “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) and 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), FIR No.55 dated 06.03.2008(Annexure P-1) under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of Crl. Misc. No. M-36988 of 2010 (O&M) -6- IPC, registered at Police Station Division No. 5, Ludhiana, Punjab is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE April 07, 2011 G.Arora