Crl. Misc. No. M-26001 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Crl. Misc. No. M-26001 of 2010 Jasvir Kaur and another ......Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents 2. Crl. Misc. No. M-32435 of 2010 Babu Singh ......Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents Date of decision : 31.03.2011 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. S.S. Swaich, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder Singh Brar, Advocate for respondent No. 1 Mr. Joginder Sharma, Advocate for complainant/respondent No. 2 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.231 dated 26.10.2009 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 420, 406, 120 of IPC, registered at Police Station Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2), entered between the parties. Brief facts of the case are that as per the F.I.R, there was an agreement to sell dated 07.06.2008 executed by Jasvir Kaur (petitioner No. Crl. Misc. No. M-26001 of 2010 -2- 1) in favour of respondent No. 2 regarding the sale of a house situated at Mandi, Gobindgarh. But a dispute arose between the petitioners and respondent No. 2. In the above background, F.I.R was registered by respondent No. 2 against the petitioners. However, during the pendency of investigation, both the parties arrived at a compromise with the intervention of respectable persons and amicably settled the dispute between them. A written compromise dated 04.09.2010 has been made by the parties (Annexure P2) In compliance of order dated 03.03.2011, a report from Chief Judicial Magistrate has been received along with the statements of all the concerned parties. As per the statements of Surinder Pal Singh (respondent No. 2), he has stated that he had a dispute regarding agreement to sell dated 07.06.2008 regarding sale of House No. 220 situated at Sector 25 Jasran, Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib measuring 0-4 Biswas comprising in Khasra No. 325 arose with Jasbir Kaur wife of Shamsher Singh son of Babu Singh and Babu Singh but he has compromised the matter. As per this compromise, Jasbir Kaur wife of Shamsher Singh has executed sale deed of above said plot on 08.09.2010 by the Vasika No. 1429 in the name of his wife Sandeep Kaur. Photocopy of sale deed is Ex.P2 and after execution of sale deed as per the compromise he has no objection if the F.I.R is quashed as the dispute has already been settled. Statement of Shamsher Singh has also been recorded to the same effect that the dispute has been resolved. As per the compromise, Jasbir Kaur has executed the sale deed of the above said plot on 08.09.2010 by vasika No. 1429 in the name of Sandeep Kaur. Photocopy of the sale deed is Ex P.2. Crl. Misc. No. M-26001 of 2010 -3- 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, Crl. Misc. No. M-26001 of 2010 -4- 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.” 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 :- “1. No useful purpose would be served in Crl. Misc. No. M-26001 of 2010 -5- 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) and 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.231 dated 26.10.2009 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 420, 406, 120 of IPC, registered at Police Station Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. In view of the status report and statements of the parties, the petitions stand disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE March 31, 2011 G.Arora