Crl. Misc. No. M-826 of 2011 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-826 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 15.3.2011 Tarsem Singh & another .......... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present : Mr. Naveen Bhandari, Advocate for Mr. L.M. Gulati, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Ms. Niti Badhawan, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** RITU BAHRI, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 125 dated 2.4.2009 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise(Annexure P-2). As per contents of the FIR, there was a dispute in relationi to one entry in the registry along with Wasika Navis in the land Khasra No. 65/9, 59/25, 58/21 total area of which is 72 square yards. The site has been sold by Malook Singh vide registered sale deed dated 23.8.2002, which was contested, for sale considerationi of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Accused Charanjit Bhatia stated that he has Crl. Misc. No. M-826 of 2011 2 purchased the suit land from Kuldeep Singh and his wife Sarabjit Kaur. Allegations are that Charanjuit Bhatia along with Kuldeep Singh and his wife Sarabjit Kaur get forged documents prepared and the registry was got done in their own names. In the above background, FIR was registered. During the pendency of the trial, compromise has been effected between the parties. Affidavit of complainant, who is present in the Court, is taken on record. She is duly identified by her counsel. As per contents of the affidavit, the dispute has been compromised without any coercion and pressure. She has stated that Annexure P- 2 has been executed between the parties and has no objection if the subsequent proceedings arising out of the FIR is quashed. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-826 of 2011 3 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 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-826 of 2011 4 litigation.” 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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(2) R.C.R. (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 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, Crl. Misc. No. M-826 of 2011 5 grossly overburdened as they a re, cannot afford.” This Court in the case of Parambir Singh Gill Vs. Malkiat Kaur 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 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.” Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (supra), Parambir Singh Gill Vs. Malkiat Kaur (supra) and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), FIR No. 125 dated 2.4.2009 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise is quashed qua the petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. 15.3.2011 (RITU BAHRI) 'sp' JUDGE