Criminal Misc. No. M- 2438 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 2438 of 2011 Date of decision:-29.3.2011 Lalit Kumar Tandon and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Sukhmeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG Haryana for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Hitesh Pandit, 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.9 dated 11.1.1985 under Sections 420,468,471 and 120 IPC, registered at Police Station Central, Faridabad (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). As per contents of FIR complainant firm is a modern sophisticated automatic offset Printing Press and manufacturers of the machines had prescribed Alcohol Damping Solution for cleaning of printing plates of these machines. The complainant-firm decided to use ISO Propyl Alclohol (IPA) of 99% purity manufactured by the reputed company M/s NOCIL (National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd.). Complainant-firm used to purchase ISO Propyl Alclohol (IPA) directly from M/s NOCIL or their distributor M/s R.A. Nariman & Ors. at 100-B, Wazir Pur Industrial Area, Delhi. During the months of October Criminal Misc. No. M- 2438 of 2011 -2- and November 1984 the complainant-firm gave order for the supply of ISO Propyl Alclohol (IPA) totaling 4480 kg. i.e. 28 barrels of 160 kg. Each to M/s Bimbros Scientific Industry, which supplied the same to the complainant. During inspection, complainant noted that the drums of the ISO Propyl Alclohol (IPA) supplied to them by M/s Bimbros Scientific Industry carried duplicate Alcohol. Mr. Vinod Kumar Tandon petitioner was inquired that as to from where he purchased ISO Propyl Alclohol (IPA). Petitioner informed that the same was purchased from M/s R.A. Nariman, who is authorized distributor/dealer of M/s NOCIL. Then on further inquiry from M/s R.A. Nariman, it came to know that M/s Bimbros Scientific Industry used to purchase only ISO Propyl Alclohol CBM cheaper from alcohol with less purity than the ISO Propyl Alclohol (IPA). It was found that M/s Mimbros Scientific Industry, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi dishonestly with intention of causing wrongful loss to complainant and wrongful gain to themselves cheated the complainant by erasing and obliterating the meaning of CBM portion from the word IPA-CBM put up by the manufacturer on the label of the sealed drum of the manufacturer. In this way by making the wrong supply during the period 12.4.1984 to 27.10.1984 M/s Bimbros Scientific Industry has cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs.44786/- by committing forgery. In this background, FIR was registered. During the pendency of trial, the parties have entered into compromise (Annexure P-2). As per compromise, Shri Arun Kumar Datta, Commercial Executive M/s Thomson Press (India) Limited has indeed has compromised the matter with all the accused. Shri Anil Kumar Tandon has expired in the year 1999 and accused No.2 Parmod Kumar Tandon is suffering from paralytic stroke. As per compromise, both the parties have agreed that they will not move any criminal proceedings against each other. In compliance of order dated 25.1.2011, the Additional Chief Criminal Misc. No. M- 2438 of 2011 -3- Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad has sent a report verifying the contents of the compromise. As per this report, on 10.3.2011 statements of complainant and accused have been recorded. It is held that compromise is genuine and correct. As per state of A.K. Dutta, Commercial Executive nothing is due from the petitioners as well as Vinod Kumar. Statement of R.K. Mangla, Chief Manager Accounts M/s Thomson Press India Ltd. also recorded in which he has stated that the matter has been compromised and he has been duly authorized to make statement and nothing is due from the petitioner as well as Vinod Kumar. After recording the statements of the parties, the compromise is held to be genuine. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 2438 of 2011 -4- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 2438 of 2011 -5- 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. 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.9 dated 11.1.1985 under Sections 420,468,471 and 120 IPC, registered at Police Station Central, Faridabad, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners as well as against Vinod Kumar, who is suffering from paralytic stroke in view of the statement that nothing is due from him. The petition stands disposed of. March 29, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE