Crl. Misc. No. M-30089 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-30089 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 31.05.2011 Bikramjit Singh and others ......Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. ADS Sukhija, Advocate for the petitioners. Sh. Guninder S. Brar, A.A.G., Punjab for respondent No. 1-State Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No. 2. **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.237 dated 15.09.2010 under Sections 420, 506, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the Code') registered at Police Station Samrala, District Khanna (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). Brief facts of the case are that the above FIR was registered Crl. Misc. No. M-30089 of 2010 (O&M) -2- at the instance of respondent No. 2. As per FIR, the Samrala had entered into an agreement to sell dated 21.03.2007 for land measuring 64 kanals 14 marlas situated in village Hakimpur and Mukandpur, Teh and Distt Nawanshahar @ Rs. 9.50 lacs per acre. Mohan Singh had executed this agreement in favour of son-in-law Gurpreet Singh. The seller had received a sum of Rs. 15 lacs on the date of agreement and date of registry for 3 acres of land was fixed on 25.07.2007 and registry for the rest of the land was to be got done on 31.01.2008. On 25.07.2007, Balraj Singh did not get the registry done and Rs. 8 lacs more was received and the date was extended to 10.09.2007 but Balraj Singh sold this land to some one else before the said date upon which they got their presence marked in the Court. Thereafter, Balraj Singh gave an application to DSP, Samrala on 19.10.2007. During the enquiry of application, he deposited an amount of Rs. 5 lacs in his account, which was taken by his brother-in-law, his son and Binda who is the nephew of his brother in law saying that they should not retain this amount and return it and kept it with themselves. Then Bajwa paid an amount of Rs. 5 lacs more in the DSP Office and this amount was also taken by these three persons but the receipt was got signed by the complainant. Then Bajwa gave the complainant Rs. 6 lacs in the presence of DSP. The agreement was taken by these persons from the Crl. Misc. No. M-30089 of 2010 (O&M) -3- complainant. After this, Rs. 7 lacs more was taken by them from Bajwa. They did not give this money to the complainant. Out of the total amount of Rs. 23 lacs, the complainant has got only 6 lacs and thereafter, they misappropriated 17 lacs out of the above said amount. In the above background, FIR was registered against the petitioners. However, during the pendency of the trial, the parties have compromised the matter. Both the parties are known to each other and they want to maintain cordial and friendly relations with each other. With the passage of time and with the intervention of respectable and well wishers of both the parties, all the disputes and differences between the parties to this compromise deed have been sorted out. Now neither of the parties has any grouse or grievance against each other and all of them want to live at peace with each other and therefore, they have decided to end litigation pending between themselves. It has further been agreed between the parties to compromise with swear affidavit in support of this compromise and will also appear before the Hon'ble Court to make statement so that the cases can be finished/quashed. Original compromise is also taken on record as Annexure R-1. Respondent No. 2 appeared through counsel and filed his reply by way of short affidavit admitting the factum of compromise Crl. Misc. No. M-30089 of 2010 (O&M) -4- and stating that he has entered into compromise with all the accused persons. He does not wish to pursue the above said case against the accused persons and has no objection if the above said case is quashed/finished. He further undertakes to appear before this Court to make a statement in favour of the compromise deed dated 29.09.2010 and undertakes to remain bound by the contains of this said compromise. 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.” Crl. Misc. No. M-30089 of 2010 (O&M) -5- 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-30089 of 2010 (O&M) -6- 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 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 status report, compromise effected between the parties and in view of the judgment of the Crl. Misc. No. M-30089 of 2010 (O&M) -7- Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases 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.237 dated 15.09.2010 under Sections 420, 506, 120-B of the Code, registered at Police Station Samrala, District Khanna (Annexure P-1), is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 31, 2011 G.Arora