Crl. Misc. No.M-16257 of 2008 -1- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-16257 of 2008 Date of decision 09.03.2011. Harbagh Singh and another ……..petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ……..respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. Raghubir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG Punjab. Mr. Puneet Singla, Advocate for the respondent No.2. RITU BAHRI, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.65 dated 4.4.2006 under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station City Faridkot District Faridkot on the basis of compromise. The petitioner and the complainant are remotely related with each other having healthy relations and dealing for long time. As per the contents of the FIR the complainant has two married sons and married daughters. They have divided the property between the children with their own consent verbally. Some part of the land is being sown by the younger son of Mandeep Singh and some part of the land is being given on lease from the last 5 years. Approximately 6 acres of land was given on lease to Pritam Singh s/o Gug Singh r/o Pehluwal in the year 2004. In the year 2003, Harnam Singh tried to take up Crl. Misc. No.M-16257 of 2008 -2- the land which was given on lease. On enquiry from Revenue Department, it was revealed that the land measuring 20K 17M out of their land, which was leased, has been sold to Gurbinder Singh s/o Harnam Singh but mutation and girdwari of the said land did not sanction in his favour. The sale deed has been got done by her husband by cheating. No consideration has been received by the husband of the petitioner. Due to this tension his son attempted to commit suicide and had lost his senses. and he is under treatment. In the above background, the investigation in the FIR proceeded. However, during the pendency of the investigation, a compromise has been effected between the parties. Copy of the compromise is Annexure P- 2 and the affidavit of the complainant dated 1.07.2008 is Annexure P-3. As per the affidavit, the disputed property has been sold and the dispute has been amicably settled with Harbagh Singh s/o Bhoga Singh and Gurinder Singh s/o of Harnam Singh. A challan was presented in the FIR No.65 dated 4.4.2006 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate on 21.07.2006. The bailable warrants have been issued against Harbagh Singh on 17.09.2008. The respondent has no knowledge to the compromise, which has been effected between the parties. During the pendency of this petition, the complainant-Gurbachan Kaur, who got the FIR registered died on 29.12.2008. Affidavit of Jagdeep Singh s/o Tarlochan Singh who is the legal representative of Gurbachan Kaur filed on 26.08.2009 and affidavits of Baljit Kaur and Kamaljit Kaur dated 22.8.2010 have also been filed. As per their affidavits, they compromised the matter. It has been stated that the land in dispute has been transferred in their names. In compliance of order dated 14.01.2011 the parties appeared before the Illaqa Magistrate and got their statements recorded and the status report has been received from the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class dated Crl. Misc. No.M-16257 of 2008 -3- 28.02.2011. As per the status report all legal representatives of the deceased-Gurcharan Kaur i.e. Jagdip Singh (son), Mandeep Singh (son), Kamaljit Kaur (daughter) and Baljit Kaur (daughter) appeared in the Court and their statements were recorded. They made the statements to the effect that Smt. Gurcharan Kaur w/o late Tarlochan Singh who was complainant and the mother of two sons and two daughters, who survived by their father, they compromised the matter with the accused and they also admitted the compromise which has been effected. They also submitted that they have also filed their affidavits acknowledging the factum of compromise. The statement of the accused Harnam Singh s/o Bhoga Singh have also been recorded that they have compromised the matter sorted out of differences with the complainant. As per the status report the parties have compromised the matter and do not wish to proceed with the FIR. The complainant party has no objection if the present FIR and the proceedings subsequent thereto are quashed. 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. Crl. Misc. No.M-16257 of 2008 -4- 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, 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 offence. 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. Crl. Misc. No.M-16257 of 2008 -5- 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.65 dated 4.4.2006 under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station City, Faridkot District Faridkot , is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. 9.03.2011 (RITU BAHRI) Jyoti 1 JUDGE