Criminal Misc. No. M-32066 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-32066 of 2010 Date of decision:-30.3.2011 Raj Kumar and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Onkar Rai, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG Haryana. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.326 dated 22.6.2010 under Sections 420,406,467,468,471,506 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station City, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). As per FIR, complainant-respondent No.2 Sushil Kumar in order to purchase a plot gave Rs.25,000/- to accused persons as token money. As per agreement, registry of plot was to be done on 5.1.2008. Accused No.4, who was stated to be real owner of the plot, never came in front of complainant. On different dates, the accused received amount from the complainant. On 12.2.2008 complainant reached the office of Sub Registrar Ballabgarh and got marked his attendance. After that he tried to contact the accused persons to get Criminal Misc. No. M-32066 of 2010 -2- the sale deed executed but the accused in collusion with each other abused the complainant and threatened to kill him in case he asked for money. In this background, the present FIR was registered against the petitioners. As per earlier report of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad dated 14.12.2010 statements of Rajpal and Rajkumar were recorded in which they had stated that they have entered into compromise Ex.C-1. The complainant as well as accused were given sufficient time whether the compromise is willingly and without any pressure. Statements of the parties were recorded separately. One of the accused Jagdish was not present on 14.12.2010, therefore, his statement could not be recorded. Thereafter, on 21.1.2011, his statement was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, in which he has stated that he has entered into compromise Ex.C-1. Statement of complainant Sushil Kumar was also recorded on 10.3.2011 to the effect that he has compromised the matter with accused Jagdish, Raj Kumar and Rajpal and the compromise is Ex.C-1. He stated that the compromise is without any pressure and now he does not want to pursue any criminal proceedings against the accused. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-32066 of 2010 -3- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-32066 of 2010 -4- 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 :- “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.326 dated 22.6.2010 under Sections 420,406,467,468,471,506 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station City, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. Criminal Misc. No. M-32066 of 2010 -5- The petition stands disposed of. March 30, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE