Criminal Misc. No. M-20680 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-20680 of 2009 Date of decision:- 03.03.2011 Tehal Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. K.S. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab. Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Advocate for respondent No.2. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of the FIR No.11 dated 18.2.2002 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 IPC at Police Station Sherpur, District Barnala. The allegations in the FIR are that the accused forged and fabricated agreement to sell dated 24.12.2000, in connivance with the co-accused Lal Singh and Harminder Singh, who were the attesting witnesses of the said agreement. A civil suit has been filed for specific performance, on the basis of said agreement to sell dated 24.12.2000 against the complainant-Dalbara Singh. After registration of the complaint, FIR No.11 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and Criminal Misc. No. M-20680 of 2009 -2- 120 IPC was registered. The petitioners faced trial and vide judgment dated 5.12.2007, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri convicted the petitioners for rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.500/- fine each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each for offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 IPC and all the sentences awarded to the convict shall run concurrently. The appeal filed against this judgment dated 5.12.2007 is pending in the Court of Sh.M.S. Chauhan, Sessions Judge, Sangrur. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners-accused have entered into a compromise with the complainant. The affidavit of the complainant-Dalbara Singh dated 18.07.2009 is annexed at Annexure P-4. As per this affidavit, after the intervention of the relatives and respectables of the village, the matter between the parties has been compromised and on the basis of this compromise, the FIR and all other subsequent proceedings are quashed. The original compromise is taken on record as Annexure A-1. As per this compromise deed, the parties do not want to pursue any civil or criminal cases against each other. They have settled all the accounts with each other. They have further agreed that they will not claim any proceedings upon agreement dated 24.12.2000. The compromise has been affected as per their own sweet-will and they agreed to withdraw criminal and civil proceedings pending against them. The petitioners and the complainant belong to adjoining villages and the dispute is related to agreement to sell. As per compromise, both the parties have settled the dispute amicably as Criminal Misc. No. M-20680 of 2009 -3- per the conditions recorded in the compromise. The dispute in the agreement to sell, is of civil nature, which has now been sorted out after making the payment. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-20680 of 2009 -4- 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.” Consequently, 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.11 dated 18.2.2002 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 IPC at Police Station Sherpur, District Barnala is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. This Court is of the view that the compromise arrived at between the parties is fair and just and a direction is given to the Criminal Misc. No. M-20680 of 2009 -5- Appellate Court to quash the proceedings, in view of compromise (Annexure A-1). The parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Court on the date fixed. The petition stands disposed of. March 03, 2011 (RITU BAHRI) Jyoti 1 JUDGE