Crl. Misc. No. M-2210 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-2210 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision : 13.5.2011 Kartar Singh ......Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. P. S. Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab. Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bansal, Advocate for respondents No. 3 to 5. **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.302 dated 20.09.1998 under Sections 419,465, 467, 471,120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Ludhiana, District Ludhiana and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-5), entered between the parties. Brief facts of the case are that complainant-Mohinder Singh was the owner in possession of the land measuring 8B-0B-17B (Pukhta) comprising in Khata No. 113/131, 114/132, Khasra No. 567, 568, 569, 572 as shown in the Jamabandi for the year 1995-96, situated at village Jhande, Tehsil & District Ludhiana. Complainant further states that he transferred the land measuring 8B-0B-17B (Pukhta) in the name of Gurdwara Karamsar Sahib Rara Sahib Trust, Ludhiana its trustee Harbans Singh vide sale deed dated 7.4.1998 bearing Vasika No. 735 and sale deed dated 3.4.1998 Crl. Misc. No. M-2210 of 2011(O&M) 2 bearing Vasika No. 241. The possession of the land has been delivered to Gurdsara Karamsar Sahib Rara Sahib Trust, Ludhiana by the complainant- Mohinder Singh. The mutation No. 1790 and 1791 of the sale deed has been entered in the revenue record and mutation proceedings are also pending in the Court of Shri Gagandeep Singh, Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Ludhiana. Accused No. 1 is relatives of Kartar Singh son of Sh. Mohinder Singh in connivance with accused Sohan Singh has got fabricated the agreement dated 10.2.1998 and also fabricated the receipt dated 27.02.1998 at the back of the alleged agreement dated 10.2.1998 in a back date with malafide intentions. The complainant has not agreed nor gave any consent to the accused to sell his land to the accused Sohan Singh nor received any amount from the accused. The accused jointly and severally have fabricated the agreement as well as receipt and has got signatures of the complainant by Kartar Singh and Sohan Singh in connivance with other accused. In the above background, F.I.R was registered against the petitioner. Vide order dated 14.02.2011 the petitioner was given one months' time to present before the trial Court and furnished his bail bonds and further trial Court will accept bail bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate Ludhiana. In compliance with aforesaid order, the petitioner appeared before the trial Court and submitted his bail bonds and released on bail vide order dated 09.03.2011. In compliance of order dated 14.02.2011, District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana has sent a report verifying the contents of the compromise. As per this report, statements of the parties have been recorded in which they have stated that they have entered into compromise with the Crl. Misc. No. M-2210 of 2011(O&M) 3 intervention of respectables and decided to end the matter and live in peace and harmony. Both the parties have admitted the factum of compromise. So compromise appears to be voluntarily and fair. The amended compromise has been filed in the Court which is taken on record as Annexure A-1. Due to non-availability of Shri Harbans Singh, member trustee, as he is in Canada, the trust still testifies and accepted the contents of compromise dated 10.02.2009 through its other member trustee, Sh. Jagjit Singh. Shri Jagjit Singh is present in the Court who has been identified by his counsel. He has stated 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 :- “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 Crl. Misc. No. M-2210 of 2011(O&M) 4 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-2210 of 2011(O&M) 5 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.302 dated 20.09.1998 under Sections 419,465, 467, 471,120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Ludhiana, District Ludhiana is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 13, 2011 Savita