Criminal Misc. No. M- 54353 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-54353 of 2007 Date of decision:- 15.5.2008. Nirmal Singh ...Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Amrik Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.B.S. Teji, AAG, Punjab. None for respondent no.2 RAJESH BINDAL J. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of FIR No. 310 dated 9.12.2007 registered at P.S. Rajpura City, District Patiala, under Sections 420,406,120-B IPC and all subsequent proceeding arising therefrom. Briefly the facts of the case, as pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioner alongwith his two partners entered into an agreement to purchase land measuring 95 bigas with the proprietors of village Islampur District Patiala on 28.1.2005 . On the basis of the agreement, the petitioner alongwith his partners entered into further agreement to sell the same land on 25.2.2005 with respondent no.2-complainant. The sale deed of the land in question in favour of the petitioner and his two partners, in terms of the agreement dated 28.1.2005 could not be executed for the reason of interim stay by this Court in CWP No. 14998 of 1998, otherwise the petitioner was always ready and willing to get the sale deed registered in his favour from the sellers of the land and further transfer the same in favour of respondent no.2 in terms of the agreement entered into. As the last date for registration Criminal Misc. No. M- 54353 of 2007 2 of sale deed in favour of respondent no.2 was approaching, a legal notice was served upon the petitioner and his partners on 14.1.2006. The same was duly replied by the petitioner explaining the difficulty in execution of the sale deed. It was further stated that he was ready and willing to return the earnest money along with interest. It is under these circumstances that the FIR in question was got to be recorded against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the registration of FIR against the petitioner is nothing else but an abuse of process of law. It is a dispute of civil nature which is sought to be converted into criminal by the respondent no.2- complainant. The petitioner did not have any intention to cheat the respondent no.2-complainant as he had agreed to sell the land specifically mentioning in the agreement that the same had been purchased by the petitioner alongwith his partners vide agreement to sell dated 28.1.2005. There was no concealment of any fact from the respondent no.2-complainant and it was because of legal bar that the sale deed could not be executed in favour of the petitioner and other partners for which reason the petitioner could not execute the sale deed in favour of respondent no.2-complainant. It was a case of impossibility of performance of agreement. Still further he submitted that during the pendency of the present petition, the dispute with the respondent no.2-complainant was settled by way of compromise entered into on 22.4.2008. In terms of which the petitioner refunded his part of earnest money to respondent no.2- complainant to the tune of Rs. 6,66,600/-. It was further specifically mentioned in the agreement that respondent no.2-complainant will not have any objection to the quashing of the FIR registered against the petitioner. Criminal Misc. No. M- 54353 of 2007 3 Copy of the agreement produced in the Court is taken on record as mark 'A'. The submission is that the matter having been compromised between the parties, the FIR in question be quashed. Reliance has been placed upon a five Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh versus State of Punjab 2007 (3) Law Herald (P&H) 2225. Learned counsel for the State submits that the complainant had submitted an affidavit dated 21.1.2008 on 6.4.2008 with the investigating officer that the dispute of respondent no.2-complainant with the petitioner has been settled and he has no grouse left against the petitioner. He further submitted that he will have no objection in case the petitioner is discharged from the case. Respondent no.2 has not appeared despite service. Though from the facts on record which remained undisputed by respondent no.2-complainant, the dispute between the parties, prima facie seems to be of civil nature, however, keeping in view the fact that the same has been compromised between the parties, I do not deem it appropriate to go into that question keeping in view the compromise between the parties. The factum of compromise as was pleaded by the counsel for the petitioner has been endorsed by the counsel for the State on the basis of record maintained by the investigating officer. The complainant had not only signed the compromise deed but had also filed an affidavit before the investigating officer admitting the factum of compromise, stating that he has no objection in case the petitioner is discharged from the case. While dealing with issue of quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise a Bench consisting of five Hon'ble Judges of this Court in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra) while approving minority view in Dharambir v. State of Haryana, 2005(2) Law Herald (P&H) (FB) 723, Criminal Misc. No. M- 54353 of 2007 4 opined as under:- “27. To conclude, it can safely be said that there can never be any hard and fast category which can be prescribed to enable the Court to exercise its power under Section 482, of the Cr.P.C. The only principle that can be laid down is the one which has been incorporated in the Section itself, i.e., “to prevent abuse of the process of any Court” or “to secure the ends of justice”. 28. In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney Versus Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, (1980) 1 S.C.C. 63, Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the essence of compromise in the following words:- “The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.” 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. 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. Criminal Misc. No. M- 54353 of 2007 5 30. 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 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. 31. 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. 32. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is to be Criminal Misc. No. M- 54353 of 2007 6 exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para-meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restraint. The Court is vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.” Compromise in modern society is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. As observed by Krishna Iyer J., the finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion. Inherent power of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not limited to matrimonial cases alone. The Court has wide powers to quash the proceedings even in non- compoundable offences in order to prevent abuse of process of law and to Criminal Misc. No. M- 54353 of 2007 7 secure ends of justice, notwithstanding bar under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Exercise of power in a given situation will depend on facts of each case. The duty of the Court is not only to decide a lis between the parties after a protracted litigation but it is a vital and extra-ordinary instrument to maintain and control social order. Resolution of dispute by way of compromise between two warring groups should be encouraged unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of society or would promote savagery, as held in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra). 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 between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the prosecution. Accordingly, FIR No. 310 dated 9.12.2007 registered at P.S. Rajpura City, District Patiala, under Sections 420,406,120-B IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. The petition is disposed of accordingly. May 15, 2008 ( RAJESH BINDAL ) ritu-II JUDGE