Crl. Misc. No. M-11320 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-11320 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision : 12.5.2011 Harish Chand & others ......Petitioners versus The State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Kshitij Sharma, AAG Haryana. Mr.Naveen Batra, 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.21 dated 19.01.2011 under Sections 419,406, 342, 422, 506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Punhana, District Mewat and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2), entered between the parties. Brief facts of the case are that Liyakat Ali-complainant has registered the FIR to the effect that on 14.07.2010 open tender of streets of Municipal Committee, Punhana, he was given the work of NIT No. 11 from the house of Chiranji to the house of Sardar of inter lock and drains for a sum of Rs. 6.00 lacs. The earnest amount of Rs. 12,000/- was deposited in the Municipal Committee. He had completed his work in the stipulated time which was entrusted to him. However, the Secretary, Chairman and Clerk of the Municipal Committee in conspiracy, issued his cheque of Rs. Crl. Misc. No. M-11320 of 2011(O&M) 2 534941/- dated 23.08.2010 and took the money from G.G. Bank, Gurgaon and distributed the same amongst themselves. When the complainant- Liyakat Ali went to these persons for taking payment, then in the meeting hall of the Municipal Committee, they forcibly get his signatures on the bill and the vouchers, misbehaved with him, abused him and also threatened to kill. When the complainant was refusing there, then he was made to run by showing rifle. He run away from there by saving his life. In the above background, F.I.R was registered against the petitioners. However, during the pendency of investigation, both the parties arrived at a compromise with the intervention of respectables and decided to end the matter and to live in peace and harmony. Now the petitioner does not want to proceed with the above mentioned F.I.R. Copy of compromise is annexed as Annexure P-2. The complainant is present in the Court who has been identified by his counsel. He has stated in his affidavit dated 12.05.2011 that he has no objection for quashing of the above said FIR. 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 :- Crl. Misc. No. M-11320 of 2011(O&M) 3 “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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-11320 of 2011(O&M) 4 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 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.21 dated 19.01.2011 under Sections 419,406, 342, 422, 506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Punhana, District Mewat is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 12, 2011 Savita