Criminal Misc. No. M- 6047 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 6047 of 2010 Date of decision:- 08.04.2011 Manohar Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Hitesh Kaplish, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl.A.G. Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. S.V. Kulkarni, 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.166 dated 2.12.2004 under Sections 420,465,467,478,471 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station City, Phagwara, District Kapurthala on the basis of compromise. As per FIR, the complainant Hardev Singh has many properties in his name and is away to Canada, had appointed Manjinder Singh son of Pritam Singh as his general attorney vide general power of attorney dated 09.9.1985 whereas Hardev Singh and Pritam Singh are real brothers. The said attorney was subsequently cancelled by Hardev Singh apprehending some mischief on 03.9.1997 by deed of revocation and intimation in this regard was sent to Manjinder Singh by Hardev Singh. Thereafter public notice was also got published in the columns of Sunday Tribune dated 5.10.1997 mentioning about Criminal Misc. No. M- 6047 of 2010 -2- the revocation of power of attorney dated 09.5.1995. A legal notice was also sent under registered cover by Sh. S.V. Kulkarni, Advocate informing Manjinder Singh about the cancellation of power of attorney and publication. Even after the cancellation/revocation of power of attorney Manjinder Singh illegally, fradulently and unauthorizedly sold the share of Hardev Singh in favour of his father Pritam Singh and his wife Jasbir Kaur. Bhagat Singh-father of complainant Hardev Singh and Pritam Singh died on 4.11.1994, despite this fact, Manjinder Singh wrongfully executed sale deed dated 29.5.1997 in favour of his father Pritam Singh of 2/3rd share of Hardev Singh and Bhagat Singh as acting as attorney of Bhagat Singh and Hardev Singh. He was also in the knowledge that the power of attorney has been cancelled by Hardev Singh. In this background, the FIR was registered. Power of attorney has been placed on record as Annexure A-1. As per this power of attorney dated 09.3.2011, it has authorized the attorney to enter into compromise and give statement on oath in CRM No.M-6047 of 2010 and CRM No.M-6049 of 2010 for effecting the compromise, which has already arrived at between the parties. Counsel for the petitioner has handed over a cheque bearing No.322131 dated 4.12.2010 amounting to Rs.8,00,000/- in the name of Hardev Singh Jagdev drawn at Bank of Baroda. After making this payment, all the conditions mentioned in the compromise has completed and nothing is due from the petitioner. In the affidavit, filed on 13.5.2010, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and they do not want to prolong the criminal proceedings pending as a result of FIR in question. The dispute was in relation i.e. between two brothers, which has not been settled and nothing is due towards the petitioner. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 6047 of 2010 -3- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 6047 of 2010 -4- 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 compromise. 3. Keeping the matter alive with no possibility of conviction is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot Criminal Misc. No. M- 6047 of 2010 -5- 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.166 dated 2.12.2004 under Sections 420,465,467,478,471 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station City, Phagwara, District Kapurthala, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. April 08, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE