Crl. Misc. No. M-6263 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-6263 of 2011 Date of Decision: 01.06.2011 O. Silva Subramanayam and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present : Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab for the respondent – State Mr. Jitender K. Sehrawat, Advocate for respondent No. 2 Mr. Sant Lal Barwala, Advocate for respondent No. 3 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? RITU BAHRI J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 504 dated 23.12.2010 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Division No. 5, Civil Line, Ludhiana City (District Ludhiana) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). The brief facts of the present case are that company M/s. V.K.C. Credit and Forex is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act and is having one office at Ludhiana and is carrying on the business as authorized dealers and money changers in the foreign exchange. In the first week of January 2010, a fraud Crl. Misc. No. M-6263 of 2011 2 was detected and it was known that some of the employees/officers posted at Ludhiana Branch namely Hanish Uppal, Shyama Baweja and Amrish Chopra and Virat Pal hatched a criminal conspiracy with their accomplices and committed various illegal and criminal acts with the company. They had violated RBI guidelines and cheated the company to the tune of Rs. 4665419/-. FIR No. 462 of 2010 was registered at Police Station Division No. 5, Civil Line, Ludhiana against four employees of the company and in the instant case, the dispute primarily pertains to issuance of a demand draft bearing No. 325256 dated 4.1.2010 issued by the HDFC Bank Limited and payable to the order of Oxbridge College in the amount of GBP 3500. The HDFC Bank, Ludhiana has refunded and credited to the amount of the company a total sum of Rs. 235240/- against the demand draft No. 325256 dated 4.1.2010. on 30.6.2010, respondent No. 2/complainant had issued a legal notice to the company and demanded the refund of an amount of Rs. 304000/- along with interest. Present FIR was registered by the complainant. At this stage, the company has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- to respondent No. 2/complainant towards full and final settlement of the claim. Respondent No. 2 appeared through counsel and filed the affidavit admitting the factum of compromise. Respondent No.2- complainant is present in the Court and has identified by his counsel. In compliance of order dated 28.2.2011, the status report has been submitted by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. As per the status report, statements of complainant Amandeep Kaur Crl. Misc. No. M-6263 of 2011 3 daughter of Harbans Singh has been recorded that compromise has been effected between her and accused persons through Diptendra Chakraborty son of Sudhindra Chakraborty who is authorised by the company M/s. V.K.C. Credit and Forex Services (P) Ltd. vide resolution dated 21.1.2011. She further stated that the said compromise between her and accused is volunteered an without any force or coercion. As per compromise/settlement deed EXC2, she has received a draft of balance amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- from the authorized signatory and nothing remains due towards the accused. Statement of Deptendra Chakraborty has been recorded to the same effect. On 14.5.2011 accused N. Nageswaran appeared and suffered statement that the company and its employees had authorized Diptendra Chakraborty to settle the matter with the complainant – Amandeep Kaur. He identified the signatures of Diptendra Chakraborty on EXC2. He further stated that the entire settlement amount i.e. Rs. 3.5 lacs have been paid to the complainant and now nothing is due against the accused persons. He also brought authority letter of Mr. R. Venkata Subramaniam son of S. Ranganathan Director of V.K.C. Credit and Forex Services Pvt. Ltd. In his favour, authorising him to appear and gave statement on his behalf as well before this Court in respect of settlement and quashing of present FIR. He placed on record the same as EXC4. The statement of accused N. Nageswaran is annexed as Annexure G and authority letter of R. Venkata Subramaniam son of S. Ranganathan Director of V.K.C. Credit and Forex Services Pvt. Ltd. EXC4 is annexed as Annexure H. The accused O.Silva Subramanyam and Rajni also appeared on 14.5.2011 and suffered Crl. Misc. No. M-6263 of 2011 4 the similar statement in support of the compromise. The statements of accused O. Silva Subramanyam and Rajni in original are enclosed as Annexure I and J. 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. 28. The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It Crl. Misc. No. M-6263 of 2011 5 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-6263 of 2011 6 overburdened as they are, cannot 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. 504 dated 23.12.2010 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Division No. 5, Civil Line, Ludhiana City (District Ludhiana) is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) 01.06.2011 JUDGE reena