Criminal Misc. No. M- 9988 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 9988 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision:- 12.05.2011 Nirmal Singh Brar & Another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and Another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. H.R.Nohria, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr.Vivek Goel Advocate for respondents No.2. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 178 dated 13.12.2005 under Sections 452, 506, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana and all the other proceedings arising out of the same FIR as well as order dated 18.11.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana on the basis of compromise. As per contents of FIR, the marriage of complainant's son- Jatinder Singh was soleminzed along with Jaspreet Kaur(petitioner No.2) on 04.02.2004 at Moga. After the marriage, both of them went to Canada. But their relations got strained. Jaspreet Kaur implicated his son in a false case but his son was granted bail and later on acquitted by the Foreign Court Officer. Then Jaspreet Kaur came back to India and registered a dowry case against him and his wife and son. He and his wife granted bail by Hon'ble High Court and then went to their village. When they came back to Ludhiana, they saw that Jaspreet Kaur along with her father and some other persons, who were armed with weapons, were present in their house. He along with his wife were thrown out of the house and given beatings. All the accused persons have criminally Criminal Misc. No. M- 9988 of 2011(O&M) 2 trespassed out house and forcibly taken the possession of their house and threatened to kill them. All their gold ornaments and other precious articles were taken by the accused persons. He had already submitted an application dated 22.10.2005 to Police Station Incharge, Ludhiana but no action has been taken so far. He also sent telegrams regarding the same to SSP Ludhiana and Chief Justice of India. In this background, present FIR was registered against the petitioners. Counsel for respondents No.2 has tendered affidavit of respondent No.2 in the court and the same is taken on record. As per affidavit, the matter has been resolved amicably with the intervention of respectables and the complainant has no objection in quashing of the said FIR. It has further been alleged in the affidavit that a sum of Rs.20 lacs has been paid to Nirmal Singh Brar and Jaspreet Kaur. Complainant- Jabbar Singh is also present in Court who has been identified by his counsel. He has stated that he has no objection in quashing of the said FIR. During the pendency of the trial, petitioner No.2 was declared as Proclaimed Offender. At this stage, the parties have entered into compromise and decided not to pursue the criminal proceedings and other litigations pending between the parties. This Court in Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal versus State of Punjab a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 17.3.2011 had an occasion to examine a case where three accused namely Radha Mandal, Rajiya Mandal and Sambodh Mandal were facing trial under Section 302 IPC, and subsequently they had absconded and declared proclaimed offenders. In the trial, accused Sudo Mandal and Dharminder Mandal were convicted by the trial Court. Appeal of accused Sudo Mandal and Dharminder Mandal were allowed by observing that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish its case. While examining the case of the three accused, who had been declared proclaimed offenders, this Court, while exercising the inherent powers under Criminal Misc. No. M- 9988 of 2011(O&M) 3 Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashed the proceedings against the absconding accused on the ground that no useful purpose will be served if they are produced and ordered to face the trial. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 9988 of 2011(O&M) 4 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, in view 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) and applying the ration of Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal versus State of Punjab (supra), FIR No. 178 dated 13.12.2005 under Sections 452, 506, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana and order dated 18.11.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana are quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. 12th May, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Seema-II JUDGE