Crl. Misc. No. M-239 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-239 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision : 21.3.2011 Anu Jain @ Neena Jain .......... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents ***** Crl. Misc. No. M-20597of 2010 (O&M) Ashwani Kumar Jain .......... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents ***** CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present : Mr. Prahlad Bhagat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Pardeep Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** RITU BAHRI, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Crl. Misc. No. M-239 of 2010 -2- for quashing of FIR No. 53 dated 26.3.2002 under Sections 420, 477-A & 34 IPC registered at Police Station Kharar, District Ropar (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. Brief facts of the case are that, the complainant / respondent No.2 is the Managing Director of M/s Chandigarh Hospital & Research Centre and they are raising a hospital building at Mohali. He further submitted that the accused Ashwani Kumar Jain and his wife were related to him. Both the accused approached him at Kharar and represented that they can get him the hardware material available from Delhi at a cheaper rate and for this, they asked the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 1.50 lacs. Since, the accused were related to him, the complainant believing in their assurance paid them a sum of Rs. 1.50 lacs in the month of June, 2001. Thereafter the accused persons neither supplied any building material in order to return the amount paid by the complainant. The accused kept on dilly-dallying the matter. The accused failed to supply the material and then the complainant contracted them and ultimately, the accused Ashwani Kumar issued a cheque bearing No. 976358 dated 1.8.2001 drawn on the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Chandigarh for a sum of Rs. 1.50 lacs on 1.8.2001. The complainant presented the same in the bank, however, the same was dis- honoured by the bank vide memo dated 11.12.2001 on the ground that the account stands closed. In the above background, the above referred FIR was registered against the petitioner. During the pendency of the trial with the intervention of Crl. Misc. No. M-239 of 2010 -3- the family elders/ respectable persons, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties on 1.12.2008 vide compromise deed Annexure P-2. As per the contents of the compromise, complainant Dr. Santosh Kumar Aggarwal, has stated that the accused have paid Rs. 1.25 lacs against DD No. 5944498 dated 27.11.2008, S.B.I., Sector 18, Chandigarh as a full and final payment. Affidavit of respondent No.2 is taken on record. Respondent No.2 is also present in the Court, who has been duly identified by his counsel. Learned State counsel submits that after investigation charges have been proved and as per report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. the charges were framed on 14.11.2005. The offence under Section 420 IPC is non-compoundable offence. After going through the contents of the affidavit, this is case of civil nature , which has been amicably settled between the parties. 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. Crl. Misc. No. M-239 of 2010 -4- 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-239 of 2010 -5- 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-239 of 2010 -6- 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, 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. 53 dated 26.3.2002 under Sections 420, 477-A & 34 IPC registered at Police Station Kharar, District Ropar (Annexure Crl. Misc. No. M-239 of 2010 -7- P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise is quashed qua petitioners. The petitions stand disposed of. 21.3.2011 (RITU BAHRI) 'sp' JUDGE