Crl.Misc.No.M-2829 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-2829 of 2011 Date of decision:02.06.2011 Sadhu Ram Singla and others ..... Petitioners Versus Central Bureau of Investigation through S.P. Sector-30, CBI Office, Chandigarh and another ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr.Sudhir Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Ashok Aggarwal, 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.SIA-2001-E-0006, dated 28.12.2001, under Sections 420 and 471 IPC, registered at Police Station, SIU(X)/ SPE/CBI, New Delhi. (Annexure P-1) and the resultant proceedings pending in the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Punjab, Patiala against the petitioners, on the basis of settlement of dispute with State Bank of Patiala, City Branch, Kikar Bazar, Bathinda, vide letter dated 11.11.2009 (Annexure P-6). Brief facts of the case are that M/s Rom Industries Limited, Mansa Road, Bathinda (petitioner No.3) (for brevity “petitioner- company) had been dealing with Bathinda (City) Branch of State Bank Crl.Misc.No.M-2829 of 2011 -2- of Patiala (for short “SBOP”) since 1976 and was availing the credit limits from a consortium of Banks with SBOP as leader. The total fund based credit limits enjoyed by the petitioner-company from the banking system was Rs.31500.00 lacs in March, 1996. The petitioner-company suffered a heavy loss in the year 1996 to the extent of Rs.38.08 crores. The main reason given by the petitioner-company for the losses to the extent of Rs.45.00 crores was account of destruction of stocks consisting of Deolided Cakes lying at Bedi Port, Jamnagar which he claimed to have been destroyed in a cyclone storm that hit the Bedi Port, Jamnagar on 19/20 June, 1996. The destruction of loss could not be corroborated by any evidence. The petitioner-company had been granted credit facilities against hypothecation of stocks which included stocks lying at port. The Bank sent their officer for stock verification. After verification of the stocks, it was found that petitioner-company had fraudulently obtained higher credit limits on the basis of stock statements which appeared forged and false. The petitioner-company approached the bank for grant of Adhoc export packing credit limit of Rs.10 crores in February 1995, which was sanctioned on 09.03.1995. thereafter, the FIR was registered by the bank on the ground that the Directions in collision with each other had furnished stock statements which appeared false and forged for drawing higher limits, concealed material facts and forged back documents. After investigation, challan has been presented in the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Punjab, Patiala, during the Crl.Misc.No.M-2829 of 2011 -3- pendency of the proceedings, compromise has been effected between the parties. On 04.05.2011, counsel for the CBI sought more time to argue the matter and for filing reply but no reply is filed. In the reply filed by the respondent no.2, it is stated that a settlement has been arrived at between the State Bank of Patiala, City Branch, Kikar Bazar and a sum of Rs.6 crores was to be paid 16.04.2008 by the petitioners. Similarly, an amount of Rs.1.25 crores was to be deposited by 16.04.2008. As per the OTS Scheme of the Bank, the Bank has acknowledged the said amount vide letter dated 11.11.2009. the recovery pending against the petitioners in the DRT has been withdrawn by the bank and no suit filed by the Bank against the petitioners is pending and nothing is due from the petitioners to be paid to the Bank. The Bank has released the securities and personal guarantees of the petitioners and their firm and of the guarantors of the Company. In view of the reply filed by the Bank, continuance of criminal proceedings and the FIR would serve no fruitful result. 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:- Crl.Misc.No.M-2829 of 2011 -4- “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 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 Crl.Misc.No.M-2829 of 2011 -5- 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. Consequently, in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh (supra), the present case FIR No.SIA-2001-E-0006, dated 28.12.2001, under Sections 420 and 471 IPC, registered at Police Station, SIU(X)/SPE/CBI, New Delhi. (Annexure P-1) and the resultant proceedings pending in the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Punjab, Patiala against the petitioners, on the basis of settlement of dispute with State Bank of Patiala, City Branch, Kikar Bazar, Bathinda, vide letter dated 11.11.2009 (Annexure P-6), are quashed. 02.06.2011 [ RITU BAHRI ] shamsher JUDGE