Criminal Misc. No. M-47332 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-47332 of 2007(O&M) Date of decision:- 14.5.2008 Smt. Kiran Sood and another ...Petitioners. Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ...Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. A.S. Kalra , Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sukant Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor, UnionTerritory, Chandigarh for respondent no.1. Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate and Mr. Rajnish Narula, Advocate for respondents no.2 and 3. RAJESH BINDAL J. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of FIR No.182 dated 29.11.2006 registered under Sections 420, 406, 323, 341, 452/511, 506, 120-B IPC at Police Station Sector 19, Chandigarh and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 7.3.2007 (Annexure P-2). The dispute between the parties, arising on account of agreement to sell executed for sale of property, has now been settled amicably. In terms of compromise the petitioners were to pay a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- to the respondent-complainant. As recorded in the order passed by this Court on 26.2.2008 a sum of Rs. 7 lakh had been paid earlier at the time of entering into compromise. A sum of Rs. 7,30,000/- was paid on that Criminal Misc. No. M-47332 of 2007 2 date by way of three demand drafts. Two bearing nos. 039317, 039318 issued by HDFC Bank and one bearing no. 099873 issued by State Bank of India dated 23.2.2008 amounting to Rs. 4,70,000/-, 1,00,000/- and 1,60,000/- respectively. Balance of Rs. 5,70,000/- was required to be paid. Today learned counsel for the petitioners has handed over demand draft of Rs.5,70,000/- to the counsel for the complainant. The submission is that as the petitioners have performed their part as per the terms of the compromise, the respondent no.2 is required to hand over the original copy of the agreement to sell and also post-dated cheques handed over to them as are mentioned in the compromise deed. The prayer is that once the dispute between the parties has been settled, FIR in question be quashed. Reliance has been placed on Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2225. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 admits the factum of compromise between the parties. He further admits the receipt of sum of Rs. 5,70,000/- today as balance consideration in terms of compromise. He further submits that he does not have any objection to quashing of the FIR. Original copy of the agreement to sell dated 27.12.2003 entered into between Kiran Sood and Ashish Sohnvi has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner. Following cheques drawn on State Bank of India, New Delhi issued by petitioner no.1 in favour of Ashish Sohnvi have been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner:- S.No. Cheque No. Date Amount (in Rs.) 1 156953 10/05/07 65,000/- 2 156954 10/06/07 65,000/- 3 156955 10/07/07 65,000/- 4 156956 10/08/07 65,000/- 5 156957 10/09/07 65,000/- 6 156958 10/10/07 65,000/- Criminal Misc. No. M-47332 of 2007 3 S.No. Cheque No. Date Amount (in Rs.) 7 156959 10/11/07 65,000/- 8 156960 10/12/07 65,000/- 9 156961 10/01/08 65,000/- 10 156962 10/02/08 65,000/- 11 156963 10/03/08 65,000/- 12 156964 10/04/08 65,000/- 13 156965 10/05/08 65,000/- 14 156966 10/06/08 65,000/- 15 156967 10/07/08 65,000/- 16 156968 10/08/07 65,000/- 17 156969 10/09/07 65,000/- 18 156970 10/10/07 65,000/- 19 156971 10/11/08 65,000/- 20 156972 10/12/08 65,000/- In addition to this learned counsel for the respondent no.2- complainant has submitted that respondent no.2 will hand over the original agreement to sell with regard to property at Delhi to the petitioners and further will withdraw the civil suit filed for specific performance pending for 21.7.2008 before Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh and another suit filed for permanent injunction fixed for 2.6.2008 before Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh. He further undertakes to get back the original documents submitted alongwith the suits and return the same to the petitioners. While dealing with issue of quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise a Bench consisting of five Hon'ble Judges of this Court in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra) while approving minority view in Dharambir v. State of Haryana, 2005(2) Law Herald (P&H) (FB) 723, opined as under:- “27. To conclude, it can safely be said that there can never be any hard and fast category which can be prescribed to enable the Court to exercise its power under Section 482, Criminal Misc. No. M-47332 of 2007 4 of the Cr.P.C. The only principle that can be laid down is the one which has been incorporated in the Section itself, i.e., “to prevent abuse of the process of any Court” or “to secure the ends of justice”. 28. In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney Versus Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, (1980) 1 S.C.C. 63, Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the essence of compromise in the following words:- “The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.” 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. 29. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 30. 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, Criminal Misc. No. M-47332 of 2007 5 enhances the social amity 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. 31. 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. 32. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para-meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always Criminal Misc. No. M-47332 of 2007 6 depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restraint. The Court is vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.” Compromise in modern society is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. As observed by Krishna Iyer J., the finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion. Inherent power of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not limited to matrimonial cases alone. The Court has wide powers to quash the proceedings even in non- compoundable offences in order to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice, notwithstanding bar under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Exercise of power in a given situation will depend on facts of each case. The duty of the Court is not only to decide a lis between the parties after a protracted litigation but it is a vital and extra-ordinary instrument to Criminal Misc. No. M-47332 of 2007 7 maintain and control social order. Resolution of dispute by way of compromise between two warring groups should be encouraged unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of society or would promote savagery, as held in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra). Keeping in view the enunciation of law as referred to above and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case, once the matter has been compromised between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the prosecution. Accordingly, FIR No.182 dated 29.11.2006 registered under Sections 420, 406, 323, 341, 452/511, 506, 120-B IPC at Police Station Sector 19, Chandigarh and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. However, respondent no.2 shall be bound by his statement with regard to return of original documents in his possession and also withdrawal of two suits filed by him in terms of compromise. The petition is disposed of accordingly. May 14, 2008 ( RAJESH BINDAL ) ritu-II JUDGE