CRM No.M9653 of 2010 # 1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAT AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No.M 9653 of 2010 Date of Decision:-12.07.2010 Mohan Lal & Ors. ......Petitioners. Versus State of Punjab & Ors. ......Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate for Respondents No.3. JASWANT SINGH, J.(ORAL) Crl. Misc.No.34018 of 2010 Application seeking exemption from filing certified copies of Annexures is allowed. Crl. Misc.No.34019 of 2010 Application for placing on record the reply/affidavit of respondent no.3 along with annexures is allowed and same are taken on record. CRM No.M9653 of 2010 # 2# Crl. Misc.No.M-9653 of 2010 Prayer is under section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of FIR No.59 dated 20.03.2008 under sections 406, 420, 506 and 120-B Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala and the subsequent proceedings on the basis of compromise arrived at between the petitioners and the complainant Gurpal Singh, respondent no.3. Petitioner No.1 is stated to be one of the directors of M/s Bee Gee Potteries Private Limited(for short the said company), petitioner no.2 is the Managing Director of the said company and petitioner no.3 is the husband of petitioner no.2. It appears that an agreement to sell dated 12.8.2006 (Annexure P-4) was executed between the company through Managing Director-petitioner no.2 for sale of land measuring 4820 square yards with respondent Gurpal Singh for a total consideration of Rs.1,60,00,000/-(rupees one crore sixty lacs) and an earnest money of Rs.65,00,000/-(rupees sixty five lacs) was paid by Gurpal Singh to the petitioner no.2. Respondent no.3-Gurpal Singh on coming to know that the company had since become defunct did not wish to get the sale deed executed and asked for refund of all his amount. Since the amount was not refunded the present FIR was lodged by respondent no.3-complainant. Petitioner no.3 Mohinder Singh who was one of the attesting witnesses to the agreement to sell(Annexure P-4) moved Crl. Misc.No.8355-M of 2008 for grant of anticipatory bail before this court. It was stated that out of rupees sixty five lacs, rupees twenty CRM No.M9653 of 2010 # 3# three lacs were returned to Gurpal Singh and only rupees forty two lacs remained to be paid back to the complainant and accused party was willing to return the remaining rupees forty two lacs and compromise the matter. On such an offer Gurchet Singh, brother of complainant Gurpal Singh made a statement before this court which is appended as Annexure P-7. It was stated that in case rupees forty two lacs is paid within six months, they would not be interested in pursuing the FIR. Complainant Gurpal Singh is present in court and he has been has been identified by his counsel. Along with the reply of respondent no.3-complainant the compromise deed dated 10.4.2010 is placed on record. He admits the contents of the compromise as well as his signatures on the said compromise deed. A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash an FIR disclosing the commission of non-compoundable offences. The relevant extracts read as under:- “The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C., which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.” CRM No.M9653 of 2010 # 4# Similar views were expressed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abot v. State of Punjab 2008(4) SCC 582, the relevant extract of which is as under:- “We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” Keeping in view the above settled legal position and taking into account the fact that both the parties have desired to live in peace and harmony and carry on with their lives without any ill will or rancour by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, it is evident that it is a fit case where there is no legal impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of the FIR in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.59 dated 20.03.2008 under sections 406, 420, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE 12th July, 2010 Vinay.