Crl. Misc. No. M-34117 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-34117 of 2010 Date of decision : 06.04.2011 Venus Saini and others ......Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Deepak Goel, Advocate, for Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rghbir Chaudhary, Sr. D.A.G Punjab Mr. Krishan Sehajpal, Advocate for complainant/respondent No. 2 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.103 dated 09.05.2007 under Sections 419/420/ 467/468/471/120-B/379 of IPC, registered at Police Station Model Town, District Ludhiana (Annexure P1) and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2), entered between the parties. Brief facts of the case are that the F.I.R was registered against the petitioners at the instance of respondent No. 2. As per the F.I.R, there was the allegations that the petitioners received certain cheques on behalf of the complainant and instead of depositing the same handed over to Sukhvir Singh who opened an account in his name and encash the said cheques. Crl. Misc. No. M-34117 of 2010 -2- After investigation, the challan was submitted and charges were framed against the petitioners on 02.07.2008. However, during the pendency of the proceedings, both the parties arrived at a compromise with the intervention of respectable persons and amicably settled the dispute between them. Respondent No. 2 has agreed to withdraw all the proceedings pending against the petitioners. Compromise deed is Annexure P-2. Respondent No. 2 has filed his reply in which he has stated that after registration of F.I.R of the case, the compromise has been effected between the parties on 06.10.2010 and ha has no objection if the F.IR. is quashed against the petitioners. Respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and admitted the factum of compromise and stating that due to intervention of respectable and relatives, the matter has been compromised with the petitioners and now he is having no objection if the FIR in question with consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed . Respondent No.2-complainant is present in the Court and has identified by his counsel. The compromise is voluntarily and without any pressure. As per compromise (Annexure P-2 ), both the parties have settled the dispute amicably as per the conditions recorded in the compromise. Counsel for the respondent does not dispute the genuineness of the compromise (Annexure P-2) annexed with the petition. Counsel for the State has informed that petitioner No. 4 was declared as Proclaimed Offender on 18.08.2010. Since the complainant has received the disputed amount of cheques from the petitioner it would be a futile exercise to continue with the proceedings against petitioner No. 4 who has been declared as Proclaimed offender in the light of the compromise Crl. Misc. No. M-34117 of 2010 -3- effected between the petitioners. This Court in Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal versus State of Punjab a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 17.3.2011 had an occasion to examine a case where three accused namely Radha Mandal, Rajiya Mandal and Sambodh Mandal were facing trial under Section 302 IPC, and subsequently they had absconded and declared proclaimed offenders. In the trial, accused Sudo Mandal and Dharminder Mandal were convicted by the trial Court. Appeal of accused Sudo Mandal and Dharminder Mandal were allowed by observing that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish its case. While examining the case of the three accused, who had been declared proclaimed offenders, this Court, while exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashed the proceedings against the absconding accused on the ground that no useful purpose will be served if they are produced and ordered to face the trial. In the present case the FIR has been quashed qua the co- accused, the petitioners have approached this Court on the ground that the other co-accused have been acquitted and it would empty formality of trial, which would ultimately lead to their acquittal. In the present case since no useful purpose will be served by asking the petitioners, who are proclaimed offenders to face the trial. The petition filed by their attorney is being entertained. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-34117 of 2010 -4- 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-34117 of 2010 -5- 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. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-34117 of 2010 -6- 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) and applying the ration of Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal versus State of Punjab (supra), FIR No.103 dated 09.05.2007 under Sections 419/420/ 467/468/471/120- B/379 of IPC, registered at Police Station Model Town, District Ludhiana (Annexure P1)is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. Accordingly, the petitions stand disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE April 06, 2011 G.Arora