Crl. Misc. No. M-4536 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-4536 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision : 13.5.2011 Muneesh Garg @ Manish Garg and another ......Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Ms. Poonam Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab. **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.172 dated 06.08.2009 under Sections 420 IPC, registered at Police Station City Malerkotla and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2), entered between the parties. Brief facts of the case are that complainant – Neelam Gupta is a Law abiding woman and the accused are husband and wife and are indulged in various illegal activities. The accused lure people on the pretext of sending them abroad and take money from them. In the month of June, 2008, the accused obtained Rs. 1,00,000/- from the applicant on the pretext of sending her to England and they will get her passport also made themselves. The accused had demanded total Rs. 2,00,000/- from the applicant to send her abroad and Rs. 1,00,000/- was to be paid by the applicant after going abroad. The accused had promised that Visa will be obtained in two months. The applicant had paid said amount of Crl. Misc. No. M-4536 of 2011(O&M) 2 Rs. 1,00,000/- in the presence of her brother namely Jeevan Jindal. Thereafter the applicant visited the house of accused along with her husband but the accused did not convince the applicant and at last refused to do her job. Then the applicant asked the refused to refund her amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. However, on the repeated asking by the applicant for refund of her money, the accused No. 1 gave her a cheque bearing No. 151289 dated 28.10.2008 for Rs. 35,000/- of her a/c No. 6491530001513 HDFC Bank Malerkotla and said that he will refund the balance of Rs. 65,000/- soon. The applicant further states that he enquired about account of accused from HDFC Bank and came to know that there is no balance in the account of accused to honor the cheque. After that the applicant has requested the accused for refund of her money Rs. 1,00,000/- but the accused have refused to refund any money. In the above background, F.I.R was registered against the petitioner. However, during the pendency of investigation, both the parties arrived at a compromise with the intervention of respectables and decided to end the matter and to live in peace and harmony. Now the complainant does not want to proceed with the above mentioned F.I.R. In compliance of order dated 14.02.2011, Sub Division Judicial Magistrate, Malerkotla 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 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. Affidavit of complainant/respondent No. 2 has been filed in the Court which is taken on Crl. Misc. No. M-4536 of 2011(O&M) 3 record. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-4536 of 2011(O&M) 4 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-4536 of 2011(O&M) 5 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.172 dated 06.08.2009 under Sections 420 IPC, registered at Police Station City Malerkotla is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 13, 2011 Savita