Crl. Misc. No. M- 21768 of 2008 {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of Decision:30-01-2009 Crl. Misc. No. M- 21768 of 2008 Ram Kumar Malhotra, Advocate and others ---Petitioner versus The State represented by Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi and another ---Respondents Crl. Revision No. 1450 of 2002 Central Bureau of Investigation, Delhi ---Petitioner versus Jagdish Bhatia and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. R.S.Cheema,Senior Advocate, with Mr. Pawan Girdhar, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Ajay Kaushik, Standing counsel for Central Government for CBI SABINA, J. This order shall dispose of above mentioned two petitions. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') for Crl. Misc. No. M- 21768 of 2008 {2} quashing of FIR No. RC-6-(S)/98-SIU.V dated 5.6.1998 under Sections 395, 364,448,506, 452 of the Indian Penal Code(hereinafter referred to As 'IPC')(Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-8). CBI has filed the revision petition under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging order dated 8.5.2002 passed by Additional district & Sessions Judge, Ambala, discharging the accused Jagdish Bhatia. Case of the prosecution, as per FIR, in question, as reproduced in Annexure P-1 is as under:- “It is submitted that I. Mamta Arora am Editor of Rashtriya Janadesh Bureau (Newspaper) 5-D/8A, NIT, Faridabad M.L.A. Chander Bhatia's brother Rajesh Bhatia, nephew Naveen Bhatia and 8 other persons having illegally taken possession of our office premises have looted the goods worth Rs. 68 lacs i.e. our Sumo vehicles, scooters and Rs. 42,000/- in cash lying in the almirah. MLA Chander Bhatia was with them. Our two security personnel Titu (Narinder) and another have been kidnapped by them and they have not disclosed about their well-being and whereabouts. Prior to that for the last few days, we had been receiving threats to our life from Chander Bhatia (MLA), Bunty S/o Ram Sharan Bhatia, Dudeja, Advocate Ram Kumar Malhotra and other persons persistently. We had given the intimation thereof to the administration. It is therefore requested that a legal action may kindly be taken against the accused and the possession of our office and out good and the persons may kindly be got recovered to us.” In pursuance thereof, investigation was conducted and challan Crl. Misc. No. M- 21768 of 2008 {3} was presented against the petitioners. Charge was framed against the petitioners under Sections 399, 395,450, 506(except petitioner No. 2) read with Section 120-B IPC by the learned Special Judge, Ambala dated 8.5.2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in fact, the present case relates to a property dispute. Husband of Complainant Mamta Arora had purchased the property, in question, for a consideration of Rs. 4,90,000/- on 9.4.1997. Thereafter, complainant entered into an agreement of sale with Ashok Mittal on 14.7.1997. Ashok Mittal then sold the said property on 26.8.1997 to Anish Malhotra son of present petitioner No. 1. The present FIR was registered on 7.10.1997. In fact, the petitioners had gone to take possession of the purchased property. So far, only 14 witnesses out of the total 75 witnesses have been examined. With regard to the property in dispute, civil litigation was also pending between the parties. During the pendency of the civil appeal, a compromise dated 10.4.2008 was effected between the parties and the same is Annexure P-7. Vide order dated 10.6.2008(Annexure P-6), learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad disposed of the appeal in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. Learned Senior counsel has further submitted that since, the present FIR has also arisen out of the property dispute, the same is liable to be quashed on the basis of compromise Learned Senior counsel has placed reliance on Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, wherein a guideline, inter alia had been laid that cases pertaining to property disputes between close relations, which are predominantly civil in nature and they have a genuine or belaboured dimension of criminal liability and notwithstanding a touch of criminal liability, the settlement would bring lasting peace and harmony to larger number of people. Learned Senior counsel has further placed reliance on Crl. Misc. No. M- 21768 of 2008 {4} Ruchi Aggarwal vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal 2005(3) S.C.C. 299 wherein husband and wife had entered into a compromise and got divorce by mutual consent. Wife had not withdrawn the FIR under Sections 498A and 506 IPC despite compromise and the FIR was quashed. Learned Senior counsel has further placed reliance on Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 582 wherein it was held in para 6 as under:- “ We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” Learned Senior counsel has also placed reliance on B.S.Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675 wherein int was held as under:- “ In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.” Learned Senior counsel has further placed reliance on Nikhil Merchant vs. Central bureau of Investigation and another JT 2008 (9) SC 192 wherein in paras 23 and 24, it was held as under:- “23. In the instant case, the disputes between the Company Crl. Misc. No. M- 21768 of 2008 {5} and the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromise arrived at by them whereunder the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not appear to have any further claim against the Company. What, however, remains is the fact that certain documents were alleged to have been created by the appellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facets. The question which is required to be answered in this case is whether the power which independently lies with this court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised? 24. On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in B.S.Joshi's case (supra) and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filled by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.” Learned counsel for CBI, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that offence committed by the petitioners was serious in nature and in this case trial is going on. Order passed by this court on 4.12.2008 is as under:- “Respondent No. 2 complainant is present in Court in person. She is identified by Mr. G.S.Bajwa, Advocate. She owns up the compounding. Crl. Misc. No. M- 21768 of 2008 {6} On request by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, adjourned to 23.12.2008.” Annexure P-4 is the copy of the sale deed executed by Ashok Arora in favour of Anish Malhotra with regard to House No. 8-A Block D NH No. 5, New Township Faridabad for a consideration of Rs. 4,95,000/-. Anish Malhotra filed a suit for permanent injunction on 7.10.1997 restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession. Defendant No. 1 filed a counter claim that sale deed dated 26.8.1997 with regard to the house in dispute was null and void. The said suit was dismissed and counter claim was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 3.11.2006 (Annexure P-5) In appeal the matter was compromised. A perusal of order dated 10.6.2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabd (Annexure P-6 colly.), reveals that suit filed by Anish Malhotra for permanent injunction was disposed of on the basis of compromise. Husband of the complainant i.e. Ashok Arora is respondent in the said civil appeal. The terms of the compromise as reproduced in para 4 of the order are as under :- “The parties have agreed on following terms:- (i)That Shri Ashok Arora, respondent in the appeal herein admits and acknowledges the appellant Shri Anish Malhotra to be the absolute owner and in possession of House No. 5- D-8A, NIT Faridabad which house is built in an area of 392 square years. (ii)That the respondent shall have no right , title of interest in respect of the said property and the respondent and his legal heirs or any person(s) claiming through him shall have any claim in the said property of any nature whatsoever. (iii)That the respondent shall not cause any let or hindrance in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house Crl. Misc. No. M- 21768 of 2008 {7} bearing No. 5-D-8A,, NIT, Faridabd. (iv)That in view of the aforesaid compromise, the respondent hereby withdraws his counter claim. (v)That the respondent has no objection if the suit is decided in terms of the compromise.' The mutual compromise entered between Smt. Mamta Arora wife of Ashok Arora & Ashok Kumar and Chander Bhatia and others on the other side is Annexure P-8. A perusal of the same reveals that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. The first party and family members would not pursue the instant FIR, in question, and would make statement before the court as well as before the authorities wherever require, facilitating the disposal of the case in favour of the second party i.e. the present petitioner. It is further mentioned in the compromise that the second party i.e. the petitioners has apologized for the damage caused. The first party would not raise any claim with regard to House No. 5-D/8A, NIT, Faridabad in any manner, as the same had been purchased by Anish Malhotra for a valuable consideration and was in actual physical possession of the same. The relevant clauses are reproduced below:- “5. That the Ist party and his family members would not pursue the above mentioned CBI case pending in the court of Sh. R.K.Saini, special Judge, Haryana at Ambala and would make statement before the court as well as before the authorities wherever required facilitating the disposal of the case in favour of the 2nd party. 6. That in consideration thereof the 2nd party without admitting having committed any offence as per mutual agreement have apologized for the damage caused to the property of the Ist party, his reputation and the trauma they Crl. Misc. No. M- 21768 of 2008 {8} and his family had under gone and keeping in view the larger interest of the parties and to maintain peaceful & harmonious relations with each other, the Ist party or any of their assigns shall not claim any right, titled or interest in respect of house No. 5D-8A, NIT, Faridabad in any manner whatsoever which was already been purchased by Anish Malhotra for a valuable consideration who is in actual physical possession of the same and no other member of the 2nd party also shall claim any right title or interest in the House No. 5D-8A, NIT, Faridabad in any manner whatsoever. The Ist party will make statement before the appellate court at Faridabad that they have no right titled or interest in the property and have no objection in allowing the appeal filed by Anish Malhotra and both the parties to said appeal will be at liberty to withdraw the amount of money lying deposited if any in the court as per the order dated 3.11.2006. both the parties to the said civil suit be at liberty to withdraw the court fees.” Since, in the present case, there was a property dispute between the parties which also resulted in lodging of FIR, in question and now the parties have amicably settled the civil dispute and criminal proceedings, it would be just and expedient to quash the FIR, in question, as continuance of the criminal proceedings would be a futile exercise. Normally in a case of dacoity. FIR cannot be queshed as it is an offence against society but the present case is not a case of that type. Each case is based on its own facts. The case of the petitioners is that they had gone to take possession of the property purchased by son of petitioner No. 1 whereas the case of the complaint is that petitioners had committed the offence of dacoity in the premises, in question. Be that as it may, now the parties have arrived at a compromise. Possession of the property, in Crl. Misc. No. M- 21768 of 2008 {9} dispute, is now with Anish Malhotra son of petitioner No. 1 as per the compromise. Now, the parties want to live in peace. The dispute in the present case is of private nature. The dispute is of civil nature with certain criminal facts. Now the parties with the invention of the respectables have decided to put an end to all civil as well criminal litigation. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. RC-6-(S)/98- SIU.V dated 5.6.1998 under Sections 395, 364,448,506, 452 of the Indian Penal Code(hereinafter referred to As 'IPC') (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Consequently, revision petition No. 1450 of 2002 is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. (SABINA) JUDGE January 30, 2009 PARAMJIT