Criminal Misc. No. M-9519 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-9519 of 2011 Date of decision:-26.5.2011 Lekh Raj and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mrs. Sangeeta Dubey, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG Haryana for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Sandeep Khandelwal, Advocate for respondent No.2. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The petitioners have sought quashing of FIR No.275 dated 28.6.2007 under Sections 420,465,467,468,471,120-B,109,504 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) dated 02.12.2010 which has been arrived at Mediation and Conciliation Center. The FIR was registered on the statement of Ronki Ram that accused No.1 with malafide intention, by preparing forged and fabricated documents and concealing the facts dishonestly and fradulently changed the land of Dera in the names of accused No.2 and 3 vide mutation No.2611 dated 07.6.1990 and when the said fact came in the knowledge of the complainant, then complainants filed civil suit. Accused No.1 then again changed the revenue entries from the names of accused No.2 and 3 to his name (accused No.1) by Criminal Misc. No. M-9519 of 2011 -2- forging and fabricating the revenue record and mutation No.2916 sanctioned on 30.3.1991 on the basis of civil court decree dated 13.2.1993. In this background the FIR was registered. During the pending proceedings, the parties have compromised the matter. As per Annexure P-2 the parties have withdrawn all the civil and criminal cases pending in the Court of Kurukshetra. It has been agreed to get the FIR in question quashed. Original compromise (Annexure A-1) is taken on record. Counsel for respondent No.2 has tendered affidavit of complainant- Ronki Ram, who is present in the Court and identified by his counsel. In the affidavit, the complainant has stated that due to intervention of respectable the matter has been compromised between the parties at Mediation and Conciliation Center of the District Courts at Karnal and he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed as all the disputes have been settled between the petitioners and respondent No.2. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-9519 of 2011 -3- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-9519 of 2011 -4- 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 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.275 dated 28.6.2007 under Sections 420,465,467,468,471,120-B,109,504 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. May 26, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE