Criminal Misc. No. M- 19361 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 19361 of 2010 Date of decision:- 03.03.2011 Kartar Kaur and others ...Petitioners Versus State of U.T. Chandigarh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. ADS Sukhija, Advocate For the petitioners. Mr. D.D. Sharma, Advocate for U.T. Mr. Arvinder Kumar, Advocate For respondent No.2. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) This petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is for quashing of the criminal complaint No.253 of 1.09.2000 titled as Lt. Col. Sukhjit Singh Bhatia Vs. Ajit Pal Singh Virdi and all proceedings arising out of the same on the basis of compromise. Vide Judgment dated 16.3.2010 (Annexure P-2), the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced for imprisonment for three years each with a fine of Rs.2000/- each. Ms. Krishna Sharma who was also accused had been discharged at the time of framing of charges. During the pendency of the trial, Harbhajan Singh Virdi, resident of H.No. A/8/H, DDA Flat, Munirka, New Delhi, died on 3.8.2004. Against the judgment dated 16.03.2010, an appeal is pending before the Court of Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. The appeal has been filed by Ajit Pal, Kartar Kaur, Ramesh Kumar, Harjinder Singh. During the pendency of this appeal, a compromise has been effected between the parties. The dispute in Criminal Misc. No. M- 19361 of 2010 -2- this case pertains to Dr. Balwant Kaur w/o Late Bishan, who had executed a Will dated 9.6.1989 duly registered with Sub-Registrar. This Will had been executed in the presence of Sh.Prashar, Advocate and Sh.J.C. Mehta, son of Sh.N.D. Mehta H.No.176, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh. Dr. Balwant Kaur died on 10.1.1998. As per the Will dated 9.6.1989 following were the beneficiaries :- “1. Rashma Rani wife of Lt. Col. Surjit Singh, 2. Lt. Col. Surjit Singh Bhatia 3. Mohnesh Singh son of Lt. Col. Surjit Singh Bhatia 4. Smt. Kartar Kaur wife of Sardar Harbhajan Singh Virdi, and 5. Ajit Paul Singh son of Harbhajan Singh Virdi” It is further alleged that after her death, the petitioners/accused in connivance with each other, forged one Will dated 21.12.1994 in their favour debarring the rights of the complainant, his wife and son from the property of Late Dr. Balwant Kaur. Thereafter, they filed a probate on the basis of this Will dated 21.12.1994 in the Court of Sh. S.K. Goel, Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. Thereafter, on 31.8.2000, a complaint was initiated under Sections 420, 465 , 467, 468, 471, 474, 120-B IPC and thereafter, the accused-petitioners were summoned to face the trial. As per the judgment of the trial Court dated 16.03.2010, they have been convicted during the pendency of the present appeal. The dispute is within the closed family relations and a compromise has been effected. The Compromise (Annexure P-7) has been annexed with the petition. In the compromise deed, it has been mentioned that Kartar Kaur w/o Harbhajan Singh is 87 years of age, Ajit Pal is 65 years of age, Harjinder Singh is 78 years of age, Ramesh Kumar is 69 years of age. They have tendered unconditional apology to the complainant and the complainant has compromised the matter and has no objection, if the case is closed. The concept of quashing criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise has been accepted and encouraged by the Courts, so that there is Criminal Misc. No. M- 19361 of 2010 -3- general peace in the society and the parties can survive in congenial atmosphere. Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another of 2008(2) R.C.R. (Criminal)910 was occasioned to examine a case where the husband had been convicted under Section 498-A IPC and the offence was not compoundable. However, the Hon'ble the Supreme Court watched the proceedings by observing as under:- “Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the parties have settled their differences. It was submitted on behalf of the complainant Smt. Sadhna Madnawat that she is not interested in prosecuting the appellants. It may be pertinent to mention that the parties hail from cultured and educated families. It was also submitted that the appellant's parents are suffering from multiple ailments because of advanced age. The appellant's father is a retired Professor and Dean, Veterinary College, Mathura and he had undergone transplant of his kidney and the appellant's mother is suffering from multiple ailments and is virtually bed-ridden.” In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 429 , had occasioned to examine a case of Compromise under 406 which was also a non-compoundable offence. “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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 19361 of 2010 -4- afford.” 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 19361 of 2010 -5- 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 concept of compromise has not been limited to matrimonial disputes only but it has been observed that watching proceedings in non- compoundable offence, it has to be examined by the Court that the compromise has been arrived without coercion and any pressure. In the present case, since dispute is related to the family property and between the close family relations, it seems fair that the compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted and criminal complaint No.253 of 1.09.2000 titled as Lt. Col. Sukhjit Singh Bhatia Vs. Ajit Pal Singh Virdi and all proceedings arising out of the same are quashed. The petition stands disposed of. March 03, 2011 (RITU BAHRI) Jyoti 1 JUDGE