Criminal Misc. No. M-3793 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-3793 of 2011 Date of decision:-03.05.2011 Kuljeet Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Nauksh Singh, 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.63 dated 3.7.2010 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Phagwara, District Kapurthala (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). As per complainant the petitioner-Kuljeet Kaur has illegally taken Rs.13,00,000/- from him on the pretext to send his son to America and to get a job for him. On 30.8.2008 complainant alongwith his wife Surender Kaur and son Amrik Kumar took Rs.2,00,000/- to the house of Kuljeet Kaur accused in Village Khati. Kuljeet Kaur and Gurbachan Kaur @ Bachno wife of Kulveer Singh Prempuri were present there and Rs.2,00,000/- were given to Kuljeet Kaur, who assured that the son of complainant will be sent to America within one month. On 5.9.2008 complainant took the money on loan from one person Mahinder Criminal Misc. No. M-3793 of 2011 -2- Singh @ Shinde by taking the registry of the plot and land as mortgage and pronote was also given, which is of Rs.12,00,000/- and thereafter on 10.9.2008 they went to the house of Kuljeet Kaur and gave money to Kulveer Singh and his wife. Rs. 1,00,000/- were also taken by the accused from the complainant for tickets. But thereafter, neither son of the complainant was sent abroad nor his money was returned. In this background, the FIR was registered. During pending proceedings, the matter was settled between the parties on 27.12.2010. In compliance of order dated 07.2.2011, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Phagwara has sent a report verifying the contents of the compromise. As per this report, on 09.3.2011 parties appeared before the trial court for getting their statements recorded. Complainant-Ram Saroop got his statement recorded to the effect that he had handed over Rs.13,00,000/- to the accused Kuljeet Kaur for sending his son to America. The sister of accused Kuljeet Kaur namely Gurbachan Kaur and his husband Kulvir Singh are permanent residents of America. Kuljeet Kaur induced the complaintnt to part with Rs.13,00,000/- on the pretext of sending his son to America. Rs.13,00,000/- handed over to accused Kuljeet Kaur on different dates. She assured that she will definitely send the son of complainant namely Amrik Kumar to America. However, accused Kuljeet Kaur failed to send the son of the complainant to America and finally returned an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- to the complainant. Rs.9,00,000/- were handed over to the complainant a few months ago and Rs.2,00,000/- were given five to six months ago. The complainant further suffered a statement that with the efforts of SHO Police Station Sadar and of village Sarpanch Jarnail Singh, he has compromised the matter with the accused. He further stated that agreement dated 27.12.2010 Ex.CX bears his signatures. He further stated that Ex.C2 is the photostat copy of the draft of Rs.9,00,000/- and he executed an Criminal Misc. No. M-3793 of 2011 -3- affidavit Ex.C3 regarding the compromise. Finally he stated that he has no objection if the present FIR is quashed. Statement of accused Kuljeet Kaur was also recorded to the effect that she took Rs.13,00,000/- from the complainant on the pretext of sending his son abroad. Now, the matter has been compromised between the parties and she has returned the amount of Rs.11,00,000/- to the complainant and she identified her signatures on the compromise Ex.CX. After recording the statements of the parties, the compromise is held to be genuine. 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 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. Criminal Misc. No. M-3793 of 2011 -4- 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 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 :- Criminal Misc. No. M-3793 of 2011 -5- “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.” As per judgment Parambir Singh Gill versus Malkiat Kaur RCR (Criminal) 2010(1) 256, out of seven accused, complainant entered into compromise with one accused and proceedings qua that 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) 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) and Parambir Singh Gill versus Malkiat Kaur (supra), FIR No.63 dated 3.7.2010 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Phagwara, District Kapurthala, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. May 03, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE