Crl. Misc. No. M-34429 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-34429 of 2008 Date of decision: January 23, 2009 Harpal Singh and another ….. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ….. Respondents Present: Ms. Promila Nain, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Arti Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab. *** S.S. SARON, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of case FIR No.292 dated 21.10.2004 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Ludhiana for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short) and consequential proceedings pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ludhiana on the basis of compromise dated 22.12.2008 (Annexure P1). In the complaint on the basis of which the impugned FIR has been lodged by Ramesh Chand (respondent No.2) it has been stated that Harpal Singh (petitioner No.1) Peon in the office of Improvement Trust, Ludhiana came along with a lady to the house of the complainant/respondent No.2 on 28.2.2004. The said lady asked the complainant/respondent No.2 as to whether he (complainant/respondent No.2) is to sell Plot No.211-D situated at Saheed Bhagat Crl. Misc. No. M-34429 of 2008 -2- Singh Nagar, Ludhiana. It was stated by her that the complainant/respondent No.2 was the allottee and he should sign. The complainant/respondent No.2 replied that he had not received any allotment letter and neither has he given any general power of attorney. Besides, after one year of the lucky draw being conducted, he (complainant/respondent No.2) had withdrawn the amount of Rs.750/- which he had deposited with the application for the plot. The general power of attorney was given to Smt. Darshna Devi (petitioner No.2). The deed number of the said power of attorney was 5775 dated 10.7.1990. The said power of attorney had been obtained by cheating. The plot had been allotted on 26.2.1985 vide allotment letter No.SB-3465 to one Ramesh Chand son of Diwan Chand Post Office Bajhor, village Chamarada, District Hamirpur. On 3.3.2004, Harpal Singh (petitioner No.1) along with Smt. Darshna Devi (petitioner No.2) and her son namely Singla who is working as Junior Engineer with a Contractor near the joint road of Ghumar Mandi Nagar Sudhar Trusts Flats came in front of the ground of the office of the complainant at S.S. Randhawa Library. He started shouting loudly and compelled the complainant that the matter should not be disclosed to the Chairman, Town Improvement Trust. In case the complainant informed the Chairman, then Singla Junior Engineer the son of petitioner No.2 Smt. Darshna Devi would not let him live in the world. Thereafter, on 20.4.2004, Harpal Singh (petitioner No.1) called the complainant from his house and took him on the pretext that Smt. Darshna Devi (petitioner No.2) had to discuss an important matter. When the complainant reached the office of the Town Improvement Trust, then Smt. Darshna Devi (petitioner No.2), her son Singla and the other son Doctor started saying that he should backtrack and say that he is not the same Ramesh Chand who had given an application in the office of Town Improvement Trust and that Ramesh Chand son of Diwan Chand was somebody else. Besides, the complainant should give in writing that he has no concern with plot No.211-D. Crl. Misc. No. M-34429 of 2008 -3- This they asked the complainant to give in writing on a stamp paper. The complainant refused to sign. Then Smt. Darshna Devi (petitioner No.2) said that she was going to raise a hue and cry that he had teased her. By holding out such threats, they again said that the complainant should sign. The complainant against refused to sign. The complainant again started threatening that they would get him picked up. The complainant alleged that there was danger to his life and liberty and that legal action be taken against the accused. On the basis of the said complaint, the FIR for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC has been registered. The challan in the case has been filed. Respondent No.2 on the last date of hearing had submitted an affidavit dated 24.12.2008 which is to the effect that he had no objection if this Court quashes the FIR as he had compromised the matter with the petitioners Harpal Singh (Petitioner No.1) and Darshna Dev (Petitioner No.2). Learned counsel for the State has submitted that challan in the case has been filed. However, charge has not been framed. A reading of the FIR shows that it is on quite vague and unsubstantiated allegations and prima facie no case is shown to be made out. In any case, since the parties have compromised and they have decided to put an end to the matter, it would be just and expedient in the facts and circumstances that the FIR and consequential proceedings in pursuance thereof are quashed. A five Judges Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 observed as follows:- “The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour – It is the soul or justice and if the power under Section 482 of the CrPC is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it Crl. Misc. No. M-34429 of 2008 -4- 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 CrPC 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.” Besides, the Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, 2008 (2) AICLR 497 has held that Court should ordinarily quash criminal proceedings where parties entered into compromise and no public policy was involved. It was held inter alia follows:- (i) No useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise – There was no possibility of conviction. (ii) 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. (iii) Keeping the matter alive with no possibility of conviction is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford. (iv) This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law." In the present case as well, the dispute seems to be trivial and personal in nature between two individuals over a plot of land. No public policy is Crl. Misc. No. M-34429 of 2008 -5- involved. Therefore, it would be just and expedient to quash the FIR and the consequential proceedings. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and case FIR No.292 dated 21.10.2004 registered at Police Station Civil Lines for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and all consequential and subsequent proceedings in pursuance thereof shall stand quashed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE January 23, 2009 amit