Criminal Misc. No. M- 28423 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 28423 of 2010 Date of decision:- 23.3.2011 Surjit Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Kulwant Singh Dhanora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. T.P.S. Bhatti, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.166 dated 11.8.2006 under Section 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). Brief facts as per FIR are that on 02.7.2004 accused Kala and Harbans came to complainant at his house and said that they will send the complainant abroad and settled the matter for Rs.7,00,000/-. Then said accused took Rs.50,000/- thousand, passport and eight photographs of complainant and remaining 6,50,000/- was settled to be given on reaching New Zealand. On 08.7.2004 accused Kala has taken him to Kathmandu by train, where Sanjay Pande, David and Ramneesh Sharma were present. They kept the complainant 10-12 days at Kathmanduand petitioner Ramneesh Sharma came back to Punjab Criminal Misc. No. M- 28423 of 2010 -2- after 2-3 days. Accused Harbilas, David, Sanjay Pande and Kala beaten the complainant and threatened on the point of spear (burchi) and asked him to call his parents and tell them that he has reached to New Zealand and give the remaining amount to Ramneesh Sharma at Ludhiana. Thereafter, Rs.6,50,000/- were given to Ramneesh Sharma. Then complainant was left to Lucknow by bus. After demanding the money, the accused persons did not return the money. In this background, present FIR in question was registered against the accused. During the pendency of trial, all the accused i.e. respondent Nos.2 to 4 declared proclaimed offender. Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG Punjab has informed the Court that the accused were declared proclaimed offender on 04.2.2008 and challan in this case has already been presented in the Court. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is complainant and submits that amount of Rs.60,000/- has been paid to the complainant by father of respondent No.2 on 31.7.2010 and Rs.65,000/- will be paid after recording statement in the Court. Counsel for the petitioner states that all the conditions of the compromise have been complied with. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 have been declared proclaimed offender and no intention can be shown by this Court against a person, who evaded the process of law, however, present in the Court. Since the complainant approached this Court and does not wish to pursue the proceedings initiated in the FIR on the grounds that he has been paid back the amount, which he had paid to the accused for sending him abroad and the matter has been duly compromised. This Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the proceedings pending qua accused as well as the complainant. In view of the fact that the offence under Section 420 IPC is compoundable with the permission of the Court under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. Criminal Misc. No. M- 28423 of 2010 -3- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 28423 of 2010 -4- 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 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. Criminal Misc. No. M- 28423 of 2010 -5- 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.166 dated 11.8.2006 under Section 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua accused persons. The petition stands disposed of. March 23, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE