Criminal Misc. No.-34410-M OF 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.-34410-M OF 2010 Date of decision:2nd February, 2011 Manjit Kaur and others .......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR Present: Mr. Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Neelam, A.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No. 1. Mr. P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Nirmaljit Kaur, J.(Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR No. 58 dated 15.02.2007, under Sections 406/498-A IPC Police Station Sadar Hoshiarpur, District Hoshiarpur as well as other consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR qua the petitioners Criminal Misc. No.-34410-M OF 2010 2 including the order dated 6.09.2007(Annexure P/4) vide which the petitioners have been declared proclaimed offenders by the learned Trial Court. On 8.12.2010, learned counsel for the parties stated at the bar that the matter has been compromised on payment of Rs. 3 lacs. The draft of Rs. 2,75,000/- has been prepared which has to be paid to the complainant in the trial Court, along with the remaining amount of Rs. 25,000/-. The matter was accordingly adjourned. On 17.1.2011 learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter has been compromised. It was also stated that the final payment in pursuance to the said compromise has been paid. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 however, requested for time to verify the same and also to file the affidavit of the complainant on record. Today when the case was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent has not contacted him thereafter. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner further in support of his stand that the matter has been compromised has placed on record order dated 24.12.2010 of ACJM, Hoshiarpur showing that the complainant has received one draft amounting to Rs. 2,75,000/- dated 22.11.2010 and an amount of Rs. 25,000/- in cash from the accused in the Court itself. Certified copy of her statement regarding receipt of Criminal Misc. No.-34410-M OF 2010 3 the balance amount has been placed on record. It is apparent from the statement that the matter has been compromised. Respondent No. 2 has not even come forward to contradict the same. There is no doubt that the matter has indeed been compromised and she is not interested in defending the present petition. At this stage, learned State counsel pointed out that the petitioners have been declared proclaimed offender. The matter being compromised, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney vs. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others reported as (1980) 1 SCC 63, held that :- “29. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the Cr.P.C. or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.” While relying upon the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, this Court in the case of Jobanjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and others (Crl Misc. NO. 10033 of 2009, decided on 29.07.2009) quashed the proceedings declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender by observing as under:- “Keeping in view the enunciation of law as referred to above and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case, once the matter has been compromised Criminal Misc. No.-34410-M OF 2010 4 between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the prosecution. Accordingly, order dated 23.12.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar (Annexure P-3) declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender, FIR No. 38 dated 5.07.2000, registered at Police Station Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar, under Sections 323, 325. 341, 148, 149 IPC(Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner.” Similar view by was also held by this Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab and another (CRM M-1238 of 2007, decided on 29.01.2007) Taking into account the fact that the dispute was a matrimonial dispute also coupled with the fact that the matter had been compromised, this Court in the cases of Sarbjit Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (CRM M-52033 of 2007, decided on 27.01.2009), Pushpa Rani vs. State of Punjab and another (CRM M-30341 of 2008, decided on 12.01.2010) and Sandeep Singh Brar and others v. State of Punjab and others (CRM M-28857 of 2008, decided on 12.02.2009) quashed the FIR even though the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender as all the disputes had been settled by way of compromise. Criminal Misc. No.-34410-M OF 2010 5 The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another-2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has observed as under:- “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 Cr.P.C is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduced 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 exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the even of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.” The Apex Court in the case of 'Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab' reported as (2008) 4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:- “6. We need to emphasize that it is Criminal Misc. No.-34410-M OF 2010 6 perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can by utilised in decided more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of law.” The present dispute is purely personal in nature. The matter was compromised before the trial court. The respondent although represented through lawyer has not contradicted the factum of compromise. In view of the above and the certified copy of the statement made before the trial court, it is apparent that respondent No. 2 is not interested in continuing with the proceedings in pursuance to the FIR. As such, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same. The fact that respondent has received the entire amount, the pendency of the proceedings is nothing but misuse of provision of law. Criminal Misc. No.-34410-M OF 2010 7 Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 58 dated 15.02.2007, under Sections 406/498-A IPC Police Station Sadar Hoshiarpur, District Hoshiarpur and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed qua the present petitioner. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. [NIRMALJIT KAUR] JUDGE 2nd February, 2011 Shivani Kaushik