Crl. Misc.No. M- 4096 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc.No. M- 4096 of 2011 Date of decision : 09.05.2011 Dalbir Singh and another ......Petitioners versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S. Virk, DAG, Haryana, for respondent no.1. Mr. Sandeep Suri with Mr. Jaswant Singh, Manager for ICICI Bank . **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 133 dated 25.6.2009 under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Baldev Nagar, Ambala,(Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3). Crl. Misc.No. M- 4096 of 2011 -2- The brief facts of the prosecution case are that accused no.1 and 2 had taken a loan from the complainant bank to the tune of Rs.26,50,000/-. Accused no.3 sold her constructed house to accused nos. 1 and 2 after receipt of sale consideration of Rs.26,50,000/- from the complainant through cheque. Accused nos. 4,5, and 6 were the employees of the Bank. All the accused in order to cause wrongful loss to the complainant bank, introduced accused nos. 1 to 3 and a loan was sanctioned in favour of accused nos. 1 and 2 by the complainant bank in the month of August, 2008. Further, all the accused with an intention to cause wrongful loss to the complainant bank introduced accused no.3 to be the owner of built up house and accused no.7 submitted a false report with regard to the existence of the same at Plot No.30. In view of the above background an FIR was registered against the petitioners. After presentation of the challan and framing of charge sheet, accused Dalbir Singh was subsequently arrayed as one of the accused. During the pendency of the trial, the petitioners have settled all the accounts by way of compromise. In compliance of the order dated 18.03.2011, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court and get their statements recorded. Status report has been submitted with regard to the validity of compromise. As per the report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, both parties appeared before the Court and made their statements voluntarily without any coercion or undue influence. As per the status report, statements of accused namely Dalbir Singh, Kulwinder Kaur, Devinder Singh, Avtar Crl. Misc.No. M- 4096 of 2011 -3- Singh, Rav Varinder Singh, Manoj Kumar, Baljit Singh, Sanjay Kumar, Ranjit Singh, Suresh Pal and Pankaj Jain have been recorded. They have also stated before the Court that they are bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise (Annexure P-3). As per Annexure P-3, the payment was to be made by February 15, 2011, failing which, the complainant Bank will be entitled to interest from 15.02.2011 till its realisation on the FDR. The ICICI Bank on its part will not prosecute the case and close the loan account and issue NOC and also return security documents to Kulwinder Kaur and Dalbir Singh and it (Bank) will cooperate with the petitioners in quashing the FIR, in question. Statement of complainant Jaswant Singh, Debt Manager, ICICI Bank, Ambala City has been recorded, in which he has stated that he will close loan account no.NHAMB00000741392 and issue NOC after receipt of payment of Rs.26,50,000/- and interest on the FDR from 15.02.2011 till its realisation as ordered of this Court. Further, it was also stated by the complainant that the original security documents are on the court file and after receipt of the above said amount, he (complainant) has no objection if the documents be released in favour of Kulwinder Kaur and Dalbir Singh. From the statements of both the parties, the compromise appears to be genuine. The payment, in question, has been made by the petitioners, as submitted by their counsel. 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 Crl. Misc.No. M- 4096 of 2011 -4- 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 enmity and reduces friction, then it truly is finest hour of justice”. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial Crl. Misc.No. M- 4096 of 2011 -5- 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 ratio of the Full Bench judgment is a special reference which has been made to the offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide where the victim dies in the course of transaction would fall in the category where compounding may not be permitted. Heinous offences like highway robbery, dacoity or a case involving clear- cut allegations of rape should also fall in the prohibited category. However, the offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide may be permitted to be compounded when the Court is in the position to record a finding that the settlement between the parties is voluntary and fair. The Court must examine the cases of weaker and vulnerable victims with necessary caution. 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 :- Crl. Misc.No. M- 4096 of 2011 -6- “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 Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (supra), 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. 133 dated 25.6.2009 under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Baldev Nagar, Ambala,(Annexure P-1) is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. A direction is given that in pursuance of the compromise and statements made by the Bank Manager, the amount lying in the bank be released as per law. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 09, 2011 dinesh