Criminal Misc. No. M- 7297 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 7297 of 2011 Date of decision:-26.5.2011 Rajbir Singh Sodhi and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. D.K. Singal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG Haryana for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 6. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) Petitioners have sought quashing of FIR No.73 dated 14.5.2010 under Sections 420,465,467,468,471 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Kalka on the basis of compromise. The FIR was registered on the statement of complainant Nitin Mittal that the accused persons represented themselves to be partners of M/s Promil Goel & Associates, 945, Sector-A, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and absolute owner of warehouse shed constructed over the land 6 Bighas 18 Biswa bearing Khewat/Khatauni No.157/165, Khasra No.839/2/2 (6-6), 1157/812/1 (0-12) total 6-18 situated at Village Sheetalpur, Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan. The accused persons told to the complainant that the said warehouse is being rented out to M/s Procted and Gamble Limited on the monthly rent for Rs.5,54,908/- Criminal Misc. No. M- 7297 of 2011 -2- and shown their willingness to sell the said property to the complainant. The deal was fixed for Rs.3,75,00,000/- and Rs.50,00,000/-, in which Rs.49,00,000/- were in the shape of cheques and Rs.1,00,000/- were in the shape of cash given to the accused persons as earnest money by the complainant at the house of Rajeev Behl at Kalka. Execution of registration of sale deed of the said property was fixed on 31.5.2009. It was agreed by the accused persons that they will clear all the outstanding/dues pending against the said property and they will also obtain the No Objection Certificates and necessary permissions from the concerned Departments of execution of registration of the sale deed. Second time Rs.17,50,000/- were given to the accused persons at Kalka. On feeling some doubt, the complainant went to Halqa Patwari to know about the right position of the said property and he was shocked to know from Halqa Patwari office that the said property does not belong to M/s Promil Goel & Associates rather it is owned by Mrs. Promil Goel in her individual name as the bonafide agriculturist of Himachal Pardesh as per mutation and the same property cannot be transferred to any non-Himachalis. After this when the complainant demanded his money back from the accused persons, they started abusing to him and refused to return his money and threatened to kill him. In this background the FIR was registered. Original compromise deed (Annexure A-1) is taken on record. In compliance of order dated 09.3.2011 status report has been submitted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula. Statements of complainants Nitin Mittal, Amit Mittal, Harpal Singh, Rajiv Behl and Puneet Mittal have been recorded. They have appeared through their counsel. Statements of accused namely Raghbir Singh, Pree Singh, Promil Goel and Dinesh Goel were also recorded and recorded their statements with regard to compromise. The compromise arrived at between the parties was held as genuine and correct. Criminal Misc. No. M- 7297 of 2011 -3- 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- 7297 of 2011 -4- 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 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. Criminal Misc. No. M- 7297 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.73 dated 14.5.2010 under Sections 420,465,467,468,471 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Kalka, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. May 26, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE