IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-3275 of 2010 Date of decision : 22.2.2010 Surinder Kumar and Others …. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another …. Respondents Present: Ms. Monica Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. VPS Sidhu, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Anil K. Garg, Advocate for respondent No.2 with Moti Ram (respondent No.2) in person. **** S.S. SARON, J. The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.33 dated 26.3.2004 registered at Police Station Ahmedgarh, District Sangrur for the offences under Sections 457, 380, 427, 506, 148/149 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and also for quashing further proceedings taken thereunder on the basis of written compromise (Annexure P1). The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Moti Ram (respondent No.2). It is alleged by him that on 25.3.2004 at about 11.45 p.m. at night he got a call that some people had entered his shop and were working there; besides, stealing goods from the shop. The complainant Moti Ram (respondent No.2) informed his brothers Ashok Kumar and Manoj Kumar in this regard. He called Jaswinder Singh Sodhi on telephone and asked him to come Crl. Misc. No. M-3275 of 2010 [2] at his place. Then the complainant (respondent No.2) along with his brothers Manoj Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Jaswinder Singh Sodhi came to his shop. They saw that 8-10 persons were working in their shop and Surinder Kumar (petitioner No.1) and both his sons namely Rohit Jindal (petitioner No.2) and Deepak Jindal (petitioner No.3) as also Sohan Lal (petitioner No.5) and his brother Ashok Kumar (petitioner No.6) as also Rakesh Kumar @ Gaju Dhriwala (petitioner No.7), Anil Kumar (petitioner No.10), Rakesh Kumar (petitioner No.8), Vijay Kumar (petitioner No.9), Dharminder Singh (petitioner No.11), Abhinandan Goyal (petitioner No.4) along with 5 – 10 unknown persons were putting paint boxes, nut bolts, bags and tools in a tempo and two unknown persons who were armed, were standing in front of the shop. The complainant and his brothers tried to stop them, but the accused abused the complainant and his brothers and threatened to kill them. The accused asked the complainant and his companions to run away as they wanted the possession of the shop. In front of their eyes, the driver of the tempo had gone away carrying the goods away from the shop of the complainant. The complainant and his brother all being scared, came to the Police Station. Surinder Kumar (petitioner No.1) along with other accused had broken the lock of the shop of the complainant and tried to take possession and also steal the goods from the shop and had broken the rack. The cause of the dispute was that Mahinder Singh resident of Chamat after receiving the earnest money had got registered sale deed of 8 X 27.5 feet vacant plot in favour of Sandeep Kumar @ Kitu brother of the complainant which Mahinder Singh could not do because his brothers were also co-owners. After that Sandeep Kumar @ Kitu Crl. Misc. No. M-3275 of 2010 [3] brother of the complainant/respondent No.2 executed the registered sale deed in the name of Surinder Kumar (petitioner No.1) with regard to the same land. The said registration was also wrong. Surinder Kumar (petitioner No.1) along with the above mentioned persons had tried to take possession of the shop of the complainant by breaking the wall as also steal the goods from the same. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the dispute between the parties is purely personal in nature relating to sale and purchase of property and possession of the same. The same has now been amicably settled through a compromise dated 18.1.2010 (Annexure P1). In terms of the compromise (Annexure P1), Surinder Kumar (petitioner No.1) has agreed to sell the property to Moti Ram (respondent No.2) for a sum of Rs.7/- lacs. He has already taken Rs.1,00,000/- from respondent No.2. He has agreed to register sale deed in favour of Moti Ram (respondent No.2) after the receipt of balance sale consideration on or before 28.2.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that in order to facilitate the compromise, the FIR may be quashed. It is submitted that no evidence in the trial Court has so far been recorded. Moti Ram (respondent No.2) is present is Court and is identified by his counsel. It is stated by him that he has no objection to the quashing of the FIR as the dispute has been amicably settled. Besides, he is making his statement of his own free will and desire and without any kind of undue influence or pressure. The dispute between the parties is personal in nature. In Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 582 it was Crl. Misc. No. M-3275 of 2010 [4] observed by the Supreme Court as follows:- We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where by question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law. Besides, a five Judges Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 has observed as follows:- “ 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-3275 of 2010 [5] compassion to achieve the ends of justice. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320 (9) of the CrPC, or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the CrPC. 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 CrPC is sued to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, 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 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, 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”. Crl. Misc. No. M-3275 of 2010 [6] Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances as also fact that the dispute is personal in nature; besides, no evidence has been recorded in the case so far, it would be just and expedient that the criminal proceedings are terminated so that the necessary sale deed may be executed by 28.2.2010 as has been agreed to between the petitioners and respondent No.2. Accordingly, FIR No. 33 dated 26.3.2004 registered at Police Station Ahmedgarh District Sangrur for the offences under Sections 457, 380, 427, 506, 148/149 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 as also all consequential proceedings in pursuance thereof shall stand quashed on the basis of written compromise (Annexure P1). (S.S. SARON) JUDGE February 22, 2010 amit