IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. 49691 of 2010 and Crl. Misc. No. M-18782 of 2010 Date of decision: 23.9.2010 Talwinder Singh and Others …. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and Others ….. Respondents Present : Mr. R.K. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioners with Talwinder Singh (petitioner No.1) in person. Mr. T.S. Salana, DAG, Punjab with HC Bhupinder Singh, Police Station Hariana District Hoshiarpur. Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate for Mr. Upender Prasher, Advocate with Smt. Balvir Kaur (respondent No.2/complainant) and Surjeet Kaur @ Sukhjeet Kaur daughters of Santa Singh and Smt. Rao Kaur. *** S.S. SARON, J. CRM No. 49691 of 2010 The additional affidavit of the petitioner attached with the Crl. Misc. application is taken on record subject to just exceptions. Crl. Misc. stands disposed of. Crl. Misc. No. M-18782 of 2010 This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR CRM No. 49691 of 2010 and [2] Crl. Misc. No. M-18782 of 2010 No.3 dated 15.1.2010 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Hariana, District Hoshiarpur for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising in pursuance thereof. The dispute in the case is between family members. The factual position is that Waryam Singh had three sons namely Gurbax Singh, Ram Singh and Battan Singh; besides, one daughter namely Rao Kaur. On the death of Waryam Singh, all his four children inherited his property. Thereafter, Ram Singh died unmarried and without a progeny. His property was succeeded to in equal share between his brothers and sister i.e. Gurbax Singh, Battan Singh and Rao Kaur. Thereafter, Battan Singh died and his share was inherited by his son Gurmail Singh. Thereafter, Gurbax Singh, the son of Waryam Singh also died unmarried and without a progeny. At the time of his death, Ram Singh and Battan Singh, the other sons of Waryam Singh had already died. Therefore, his (Gurbax Singh’s) estate was inherited by his sister Rao Kaur. Gurmail Singh son of Battan Singh, however, claimed the share of Gurbax Singh on the basis of a Will dated 25.5.1982 said to be executed by Gurbax Singh. The revenue authorities, however, sanctioned mutation on the basis of natural succession in favour of Rao Kaur. Gurmail Singh son of Battan Singh son of Waryam Singh filed a civil suit claiming that Gurbax Singh son of Waryam Singh had executed a Will dated 25.5.1982 in his favour. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 10.1.1997 upheld CRM No. 49691 of 2010 and [3] Crl. Misc. No. M-18782 of 2010 the Will dated 25.5.1982 in favour of Gurmail Singh son of Battan Singh. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, Rao Kaur, daughter of Waryam Singh preferred an appeal and the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur vide its judgment and decree dated 20.7.2002 accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 10.1.1997. Aggrieved against the order dated 20.7.2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, Gurmail Singh preferred RSA No.4131 of 2002 in this Court which was dismissed on 17.2.2009. Thereafter, no further appeal was taken up and the order dated 17.2.2009 which affirmed the judgment and decree dated 20.7.2002 of the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur became final. The effect of the same was that Rao Kaur was entitled to the estate of Gurbax Singh. Rao Kaur had died during the pendency of the said suit. Her husband Santa Singh had pre-deceased her. Therefore, Rao Kaur died leaving behind her three legal heirs i.e. Sohan Singh son of Santa Singh; besides, Surjeet Kaur @ Sukhjeet Kaur and Balvir Kaur (respondent No.2) daughters of Santa Singh and Rao Kaur. Talwinder Singh (petitioner No.1) is the son of Sohan Singh (petitioner No.2) and he impersonated two ladies in place of her father’s sisters (bhuas) and produced them before the revenue authorities as Surjeet Kaur @ Sukhjeet Kaur and Balvir Kaur (respondent No.2) and got mutation of inheritance of Rao Kaur sanctioned in favour of his father Sohan Singh (petitioner No.2) only. In view thereof, FIR No.3 dated 15.1.2010 (Annexure P1) was CRM No. 49691 of 2010 and [4] Crl. Misc. No. M-18782 of 2010 registered for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. It was alleged that mutation in respect of the land of Gurbax Singh son of Waryam Singh was to be sanctioned in favour of Rao Kaur and on her death in favour of her three legal heirs i.e. Sohan Singh (petitioner No.2), Surjeet Kaur @ Sukhjeet Kaur and Balvir Kaur (respondent No.2). However, Talwinder Singh (petitioner No.1) son of Sohan Singh (petitioner No.2) in connivance with his father Sohan Singh (petitioner No.2) and the revenue authorities illegally got mutation No.798 dated 9.7.2009 in favour of his father Sohan Singh (petitioner No.2) only by producing some other ladies. Surjeet Kaur @ Sukhjeet Kaur and Balvir Kaur (respondent No.2) had never appeared before the revenue authorities. At this stage, the matter has been amicably settled within the family. Balvir Kaur (respondent No.2) who is the complainant has deposed an affidavit dated 20.2.2010 (Annexure P2) stating therein that a compromise has been effected between them and if the case is cancelled, they would have no objection and they are ready to give their statements in Court, if the need so arises. Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant Balvir Kaur (respondent No.2). Balvir Kaur (respondent No.2) and her sister Surjeet Kaur @ Sukhjeet Kaur are present in Court. Learned counsel has filed the reply in Court today which is taken on record. In the reply, it is stated by Balvir Kaur (respondent No.2) that she as well as Surjeet Kaur @ Sukhjeet Kaur were aggrieved CRM No. 49691 of 2010 and [5] Crl. Misc. No. M-18782 of 2010 party and with the intervention of the respectables, a compromise has been effected between the parties. Now, Balvir Kaur (respondent No.2) has no grudge with the petitioners. It is stated that both of them have no objection if the FIR is quashed. Both the ladies i.e. Balvir Kaur (respondent No.2) and her sister Surjeet Kaur @ Sukhjeet Kaur are present in Court and are identified by their counsel and also by HC Bhupinder Singh, Police Station Hariana District Hoshiarpur. Both the ladies have stated that they have no objection to the quashing of the FIR as they have amicably settled the matter and the land has been sold further. It is stated that they have compromised the matter of their own free will and desire and without any kind of pressure or undue influence. Learned State counsel has submitted that in case the matter has been amicably resolved, the State would have no serious objection to the quashing of FIR. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. The offences against the petitioners are that of under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. Both the offences are compoundable with the permission of the Court in terms of Section 320 (2) CrPC. The petitioners had also filed an application for compounding the offences before the trial Court at Hoshiarpur. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur vide order dated 22.5.2010 (Annexure P5) adjourned the case sine die. It was observed that the accused had not surrendered before the police and had not participated in the investigation and the CRM No. 49691 of 2010 and [6] Crl. Misc. No. M-18782 of 2010 investigation was still pending. Now the matter has been amicably settled and the dispute being between close relatives, it would be just and expedient that this court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction terminates the proceedings by quashing the FIR. In Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 582 it was observed by the Supreme Court as follows:- We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where by 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 the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law. CRM No. 49691 of 2010 and [7] Crl. Misc. No. M-18782 of 2010 Besides, a five Judges Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 has observed as follows:- “ 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) of the CrPC, or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the CrPC. 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 CrPC is sued 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 CRM No. 49691 of 2010 and [8] Crl. Misc. No. M-18782 of 2010 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 CrPC 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”. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and FIR No. 3 dated 15.1.2010 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Hariana, District Hoshiarpur for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 Indian Penal Code and all subsequent and consequential proceedings arising therefrom shall stand quashed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE September 23, 2010 amit