Crl. Misc. No. M-27770 of 2010 (O&M) {1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-27770 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 23.05.2011 Ashwani Kumar and another ......Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG, Punjab Sh. Amit Kohar, Advocate for respondent No. 2 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of F.I.R No. 36 dated 23.02.2009 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Civil Lines Batala, Batala under Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; the final report dated 08.06.2009 (Annexure P-2) submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C and the commitment order dated 04.08.2010 (Annexure P3) and all the subsequent proceeding arising Crl. Misc. No. M-27770 of 2010 (O&M) {2} therefrom. The F.I.R was registered on account of bouncing of cheque No. 577964 dated 16.09.2008 of Rs. 10,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India Batala Branch issued by them and for using caste related words “Chuhra Kutta” against the complainant. The complainant is posted as Godown Supervisor/Incharge of the Batala depot of Punjab Small Industry and Export Corporation, Chandigarh. As per instructions issued by the Govt., PSIC Limited Batala supplied pig iron (raw material). One day, the complainant asked Ashwani Kumar to make payment of Rs. 10 lacs i.e the cheque amount, pick up and stored goods and to make payment of the remaining amount and should pay the amount on account of storage facility and interest thereupon. On this, Ashwani Kumar and his son Kartik alias Kuki started abusing him by saying 'Kutua Churya'. In the above background, the F.I.R was registered against the petitioners. After completion of the investigation, the prosecution submitted challan dated 08.06.2009 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala (Annexure P2) and the same was submitted in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Batala on 17.08.2009. On 04.08.2010, the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala has committed the same to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Crl. Misc. No. M-27770 of 2010 (O&M) {3} Gurdaspur and now the next date before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur is 23.09.2010 (Annexure P3). However, on 21.09.2010, the proceedings were challenged before this Court and the trial Court was directed to stay the further proceedings. However, during the pendency of this petition, the compromise has been effected between the parties. As per compromise, the complainant has stated that FIR was registered by him on account of some misunderstanding between them and now with the intervention of respectable persons and friends, the matter has been amicably settled and the complainant is no longer interested in proceeding any further in the said FIR and has no objection in case the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed on the basis of compromise. Counsel for respondent No. 2 has put in appearance and filed the affidavit of respondent No. 2 stating that the above said FIR was registered by him against the petitioners. On 21.05.2011, a written compromise has been arrived at between the parties and the complainant has no objection if the above said FIR and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom be quashed against the petitioners. The complainant has further stated that he abides by all the terms and conditions of the compromise dated 21.05.21011 Crl. Misc. No. M-27770 of 2010 (O&M) {4} executed between them. Original compromise is also taken on record as Annexure A-1. 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-27770 of 2010 (O&M) {5} 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 enmity 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-27770 of 2010 (O&M) {6} justice may throw up during the course of a litigation.” 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), F.I.R No. 36 dated 23.02.2009 (Annexure P1) Crl. Misc. No. M-27770 of 2010 (O&M) {7} registered at Police Station Civil Lines Batala, Batala under Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; the final report dated 08.06.2009 (Annexure P-2) submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C and the commitment order dated 04.08.2010 (Annexure P3) are quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 23, 2011 G.Arora