Crl.Misc.No.M-12576 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-12576 of 2011 Date of decision:02.06.2011 Mandip Singh ..... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr.Sandeep S. Majithia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Munish Kumar, AAG, Punjab for respondent no.1. Mr.Puneet Singla, Advocate for respondent no.2. RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.22, dated 17.02.2011, under Section 420, 120- IPC, registered at Police Station Gharinda, District Amritsar, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties. The FIR was registered on the statement made by Gurmeet Singh s/o Karam Singh, respondent no.2, that on 13.05.2010, a forgery amounting to Rs.30,00,000/- has been committed by Mandip Singh, Raghbir Singh and Manjit. During investigation, it was found that Gurmeet Singh had family relations with Sandeep Singh and in the Month of July, 2007, he had promised to send their family member abroad. Gurmeet Singh gave an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- to the accused in presence of Balwinder Singh. Then in May, 2009, he Crl.Misc.No.M-12576 of 2011 -2- handed over Rs.13,00,000/- to Mandeep Singh, Raghubir Singh, Nirmal Singh in the presence of Amarpal Singh, Jagir Singh , Nambardar rsident of Basarkay Bhani. During investigation, it was found that Raghubir Singh and Nirmaljit have no role in the fraud committed and it was Manjit Singh who had committed fraud on the pretext of sending Gurmeet Singh's family members abroad by receiving instalments of Rs.30,00,000/-. In the above background, the FIR was registered against the petitioner. At the stage of investigation, the parties have entered into a compromise, Anexure P-2. The affidavit filed by Gurmeet Singh, complainant is Annexure P-3. In compliance of the order dated 27.04.2011, the status report has been filed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Amritsar, which reveals that Gurmit Singh s/o Karam Singh made a statement on 14.05.2011 that the matter has been compromised vide Annexure P-2. The accused has admitted his signatures on the compromise. Statement of the accused has been recorded to the same effect. Original compromise is taken on record as Annexure A-1. The complainant is present in person and has been duly identified by his counsel After perusing the compromise, this Court is of the opinion that the compromise is effected between the parties without any pressure or coercion. As per the status report, the compromise is held to be valid and genuine. Broad guidelines have been laid down by the Full Bench of Crl.Misc.No.M-12576 of 2011 -3- 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 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 Crl.Misc.No.M-12576 of 2011 -4- 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 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. Crl.Misc.No.M-12576 of 2011 -5- 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. 22 dated 17.02.2011 under sections 420, 120- B IPC, registered at Police Station Gharinda, District Amritsar, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. 02.06.2011 [ RITU BAHRI ] shamsher JUDGE