Crl. Misc. No.M-18814 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-18814 of 2009 Date of Decision: 30.11.2009 Sohit Narang ....Petitioner Versus U.T. Chandigarh etc. ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Singla, Advocate for Mr. G.S. Chahal, APP, for U.T., Chandigarh. Mr. R.S. Modi, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the quashing of FIR No.16 dated 05.01.2008 under Sections 420, 120-B IPC and Section 24 of the Immigration Act, registered at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh. It is stated by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the matter has been compromised by the parties with the intervention of the relatives of the parties and respectables of the Village. The respondent no.2 is represented by his counsel and also filed reply by way of affidavit, which is taken on record. It is stated in the reply that the matter has been compromised between him and the petitioner. It is also stated that he has Crl. Misc. No.M-18814 of 2009 2 no objection, if the said FIR is quashed. The statement of Rajbir Singh son of Sh. Joginder Singh, is, hereby, recorded separately. It is relevant to note the facts of the present case. As per the FIR, the respondent No.2-Rajbir Singh son of Sh. Joginder Singh gave Rs.75,000/- to the accused to settle him in Canada by telling him that they had good relations with several big companies abroad and it was very easy for them to arrange work visa for better life and assured him that his work will be done. Thereafter, the accused did not do his work and nor returned the money. After some days, they handed back the passport and promised him to return back the money in instalments. A Cheque of Rs.25,000/- was handed over towards the first instalment. However, the same was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. Today, the respondent No.2 appeared in person and recorded his statement separately. He has stated that the petitioner has since returned his amount that was paid by him. Hence, he had no objection to the quashing of the said FIR. The Full Bench of this Court, rendered in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another reported in(P&H) (LB) 1052, held as under :- “ The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be a hostage to one class or category of cases. That would be a complete mis-construction of the intent of the Legislature, who placed its utmost faith in the inherent power of the High Court to break free the shackle of other provisions of the Code to give effect to any order under it or to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” And further in paras 24 and 25, concluded as follows :- “24. While parting with this part, it appears necessary to add that the settlement or compromise must satisfy the conscience of the Crl. Misc. No.M-18814 of 2009 3 court. The settlement must be just and fair besides being free from the undue pressure, the court must examine the cases of weaker and vulnerable victims with necessary caution. 25. 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 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”. Thus, the dispute which has its 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. The present case concerns money dispute. The said money having been paid back, nothing survives in the present complaint. There is, however, no reason as to why the said FIR should not be quashed. It is not disputed by learned State counsel that no offence under Section 24 of the Immigration Act, is otherwise made out. In view of the above and the compromise, as well as, the statement of the complainant, the petition is allowed and FIR No.16 dated 05.01.2008 registered under Sections 420, 120-B IPC and Section 24 of the Immigration Act registered at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh qua the petitioner, is, accordingly, quashed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 30.11.2009 JUDGE gurpreet