Crl. Misc. No. M-7710 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-7710 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision : 12.5.2011 Ram Kumar and others ......Petitioners versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Anmol Partap Singh Mann, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Kshitij Sharma, AAG Haryana. Mr.S.S.Siao 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.39 dated 07.03.2005 under Sections 420/465/467/468/471/120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Chhachhrauli District Yamunanagar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise entered between the parties. Brief facts of the case are that applicant-Ram Kumar had entered into an agreement with Malkiat Kaur to buy her land measuring 10 kanals 7 marlas located in village Karkauli, tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamunanagar for consideration of Rs. 1.60 lacs and 40000/- were paid as earnest money vide receipt dated 16.06.1993. Accused No. 4 Karam Singh, who is relative of accused No. 1 and 3, had attested the said agreement as a witness. The date for execution of the sale deed was fixed for 20.06.1995. That accused No. 1 and 4 in connivance with each other got a deed executed in the name of Karnail Singh. In order to illegally benefit themselves and to Crl. Misc. No. M-7710 of 2011(O&M) 2 cause illegal loss to the applicant, the accused procured an ante-dated stamp paper of 30.12.1991 and got entered an ante-dated agreement to sell from Ram Kumar deed writer in favour of Shamsher Singh real brother of Karnail Singh. Accused Ram Kumar deed writer in connivance with each other made an entry on the last page of the register for the year 1992, by deleting the line of closing the register and by making an entry of the agreement to sell in his register dated 30.12.1991, so that the agreement to sell prepared at the instance of the accused persons could be shown to have been wirtten prior to the agreement to sell in favour of the applicant. In the above background, F.I.R was registered against the petitioners. However, during the pendency of investigation, both the parties arrived at a compromise with the intervention of respectables and decided to end the matter and to live in peace and harmony. Now the complainant does not want to proceed with the above mentioned F.I.R. Copy of compromise is annexed as Annexure P-2. As per affidavit of respondent No. 2 (Annexure P-3) both the parties arrived at a compromise without any fear and pressure and decided to end the matter and to live in peace and harmony. Respondent No.2-complainant appeared through counsel and admitting the factum of compromise and stating that the matter has been compromised with the petitioners without any fear and pressure and now he is having no objection if the FIR in question with consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed qua petitioners. Respondent No.2-complainant is present in the Court and has identified by his counsel. The compromise is voluntarily and without any pressure. As per compromise (Annexure P-2 ), both the parties have settled the dispute Crl. Misc. No. M-7710 of 2011(O&M) 3 amicably as per the conditions recorded in the compromise. In compliance of order dated 05.04.2011, District and Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri has sent a report verifying the contents of the compromise. As per this report, statements of both the parties have been recorded in which they have stated that they have entered into compromise voluntarily without any fear and pressure and decided to end the matter and live in peace and harmony. Both the parties have admitted the factum of compromise. So compromise appears to be voluntarily and fair. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-7710 of 2011(O&M) 4 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-7710 of 2011(O&M) 5 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. 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. 39 dated 07.03.2005 under Sections 420/465/467/468/471/120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Chhachhrauli District Yamunanagar is quashed Crl. Misc. No. M-7710 of 2011(O&M) 6 with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 12, 2011 Savita