Crl. Misc. No. M-15105 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-15105 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.05.2011 Rachit Nagpal and others ......Petitioners versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, A.A.G, Haryana **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.102 dated 27.03.2010 under Sections 364/364-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the Code') , registered at Police Station, Sector 5, Panchkula (Annexure P1) and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of undertaking (Annexure P-2), entered between the parties. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had received a telephonic call from mobile No. 9041044835 that his son is in their custody and 80 lacs was sought to protect the life of the son of the complainant. In the evening, the car of son of the complainant was found near Waah Delhi. A call was made to him who told the daughter of the complainant that he is with his friends in Saketri. Thereafter, when she again called him, then phone of the son of the complainant was found switched off. Some unknown Crl. Misc. No. M-15105 of 2010 (O&M) -2- person have kidnapped him. In the above background, the FIR was registered against the petitioners. After investigation, the challan was presented and the case is fixed for framing of charge. However, during the pendency of the proceedings, both the parties arrived at a compromise on 15.05.2010 (Annexure P2). As per compromise, the matter has been sorted out and no physical and financial losses has been caused to the complainant and his son and now the complainant does not want to puruse the above said FIR and has no objection if the FIR is quashed. On notice, a reply has been filed by Sub Inspector, Police Station, Sector 5, Panchkula. As per reply, it is submitted that after recording of the statement of the complainant, his son and Naresh Kumar Garg, investigation was carried out and petitioner No. 1 was arrested on 4.04.2010 and petitioner No. 6 was arrested on 08.04.2010. After completion of various other formailities, the challan was presented in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula in June, 2010 and the case has been committed to the Sessions Court. Subsequently, this Court vide order dated 06.07.2010, petitioner No. 2 was granted anticipatory bail on the basis of this compromise. In compliance of order dated 15.02.2011, status report has been filed by District and Sessions Judge, Panchkula. As per this report, statement of the complainant and both the witnesses namely Deep Krishan Chauhan and Ashok Kumar have been recorded. Complainant in his statement has admitted the genuineness of the said undertaking Ex.X1 (copy of which is Annexure P2) and also admitted his signature on the same. Both the Crl. Misc. No. M-15105 of 2010 (O&M) -3- witnesses have also admitted that the said undertaking was given by the complainant in their presence. The same was signed by him in their presence and thereafter, they put their signatures on the said undertaking. The original undertaking (Annexure P2) was produced by the complainant before this Court as Ex.X1. So Annexure P2 is a genuine document. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-15105 of 2010 (O&M) -4- 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-15105 of 2010 (O&M) -5- 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) , this Court has no hesitation to quash the present FIR in view of the status report and compromise entered between the parties. FIR No.102 dated 27.03.2010 under Sections 364/364-A of the Code , registered at Police Station, Sector 5, Panchkula is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 18, 2011 G.Arora