Criminal Misc. No. M- 37998 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 37998 of 2010 Date of decision:- 26.04.2011 Vinod Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Gopal Krishan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Virk, DAG Haryana. Mr. K.S. Jetley, Advocate for respondent No.5. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 296 dated 29.11.2010 under Sections 457 and 380 IPC, registered at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt. (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise. Criminal Misc. No. M- 37998 of 2010 -2- The FIR was registered on the statement of Jitender Nath Bakshi, who was running a business of export under the name and style of M/s Roselain Meditech at 80, Industrial Area, Ambala Cantt. On 29.11.2010 when he went to his office he found that the panes of windows broken and the windows plus doors opened and computer (CPU) Monitor TCT, UPS and modem of BSNL were stolen. He had suspicion on his previous employee Vinod Kumar, who is running the business like him in partnership under the name M/s Opto Labzone. He had left the working with the complainant since July 2009. In the above background, the FIR was registered. The petitioner was arrested and was granted bail on 07.12.2010. Brother of the petitioner has entered into compromise and it was agreed that they will not proceed against the petitioner in the FIR in question. Compromise deed dated 14.12.2010 is Annexure P-3. Affidavit of Jitender Nath Bakshi has been filed through his counsel. The complainant is present in the Court and has been duly identified by his counsel. As per the affidavit filed, the respondent No.5 has entered into compromise with the petitioner and has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed which was registered against the petitioner with all consequential proceedings. Mr. P.S. Virk, DAG Haryana argued that after completion of investigation challan has been filed and the case is fixed for 23.5.2011 for framing of charge. The fact of compromise is not in his knowledge. 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:- Criminal Misc. No. M- 37998 of 2010 -3- “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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 37998 of 2010 -4- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 37998 of 2010 -5- Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), FIR No. 296 dated 29.11.2010 under Sections 457 and 380 IPC, registered at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt. is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. April 26, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE