Crl. Misc. No. M-5705 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-5705 of 2010 Date of Decision : 14.10.2011 Paramjit Chowdhary .......... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present : Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raja Sharma, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Gurinder Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3. **** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of FIR No. 272 dated 3.8.2009 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station Sohna, District Gurgaon and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 9.2.2010 (Annexure P-3). It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction was filed by respondent No.2 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Gurgaon against the petitioner as well as respondent No.2. During the pendency of the suit, compromise dated 9.2.2010 was entered into between the parties during the mediation and conciliation proceedings held at Gurgaon. On the basis of the said compromise suit preferred by respondent No.2 was decreed by the trial Court vide order dated 10.2.2010. On the basis of the said decree Crl. Misc. No. M-5705 of 2010 -2- of suit and the compromise, prayer has been made for quashing of the FIR as the matter has been amicably settled and there being no dispute between the parties. Counsel for respondents No.2 & 3 do not dispute the factual assertions made by the counsel for the petitioner. However, he contends that the decree has not been given effect to by the revenue authorities till date and he further prays that the petitioner be directed to appear before the revenue authorities as and when his presence is required. Counsel for the petitioner on behalf of the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner shall appear before the revenue authorities as and when the need so arises. In view of the amicable settlement of the dispute, which factum has been admitted by the parties and the copy of the compromise as well as the decree passed in favour of respondent No.2, placed on record as Annexures P-3 & P-4, there is no dispute now as the earlier dispute which was primarily relating to a piece of land stands settled between the parties and, therefore, the continuance of the criminal proceedings for a matter which has lost its relevance now would be wastage of valuable Court time and, therefore, would not be in the interest of justice. A larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, while discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non-compoundable offence(s), has held as under :- “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 amity 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-5705 of 2010 -3- 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 litigation. 29. The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.” In the light of the above compromise and the consequential decree passed in favour of respondent No.2 and, there being no further grudge on the part of respondent No.2 against the petitioner, interest of justice would be duly served as per the observations made by the larger Bench of this Court by bringing an amicable and respectful end to the criminal litigation as well. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 272 dated 3.8.2009 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station Sohna, District Gurgaon is hereby quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The apprehension put forth by the counsel for respondent No.2 does not appear to be quite justified, however, it goes without saying that the decree passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Gurgaon dated 10.2.2010 (Annexure P-4) has to be given effect to by the revenue authorities unless there is any legal hitch in doing so. In case, there is any legal impediment, Crl. Misc. No. M-5705 of 2010 -4- the same be conveyed to the parties concerned. As per the undertaking given by the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner shall be bound by the same and appear before the revenue authorities. 14.10.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 'sp' JUDGE