Criminal Misc. No. M- 33122 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 33122 of 2010 Date of decision:- 04.03.2011 Dinesh Kumar and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. R.K. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Munish Kumar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. S.P. Singh, Advocate for Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate for respondent No.2-complainant. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.221 of 15.11.2008 under Sections 420,467,468,471 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise. As per the FIR, there is dispute in relation to the execution of Will dated 30.08.1994 of Kapoor Singh. This Will was in favour of his son Sital Singh and his wife Chand Kaur. Chand Kaur wife of Kapoor Singh died on 21.3.2000 leaving behind Sital Singh as her legal heir. Sital Singh died on 01.09.2002. As per Will dated 23.8.2002 he has given his entire property to Anjandeep Kaur, his daughter and his wife Nora Stella Sandhu in equal shares. The accused Jasmail Singh and late Maghar Singh are cousin nephew of late Sital Singh. They, in connivance with other accused get the mutation of 52 Kanals 2 Marlas in their Criminal Misc. No. M- 33122 of 2010 -2- favour by producing a forged death certificate of Kapoor Singh and forged Will in their favour dated 08.8.1994. Kapoor Singh is a British passport holder and as per the passport, his last entry in India was 07.11.1988. As per the death certificate, he died in Kenya on 21.3.2000. In the above background, the FIR was registered on account of cheating and fraud. The petitioners claims that they are bonafide purchaser of the land in dispute and respondent No.2 alongwith other co-sharers had already filed a civil suit in Jalandhar challenging the sale deed executed in favour of petitioners and other co-accused. During pendency of civil suit, the petitioners have entered into a compromise with respondents and other co-sharers. The petitioners have agreed to leave the land in favour of respondents and other co-sharers in view of compromise (Annexure P-2). As per compromise, respondent No.2 does not want to proceed the criminal proceedings in FIR against the petitioners. In compliance of order dated 11.11.2010 parties appeared before the trial Court and get their statements recorded. Report from the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana has been received. As per this report, complainant and the accused had appeared before the Court on 01.12.2010 and got their statements recorded. As per their statements recorded they have arrived at a compromise voluntarily, without any pressure and coercion. The status report is accompanied alongwith the statements of complainant and accused. 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. Criminal Misc. No. M- 33122 of 2010 -3- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 33122 of 2010 -4- 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. 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 compromise and 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.221 of 15.11.2008 under Sections 420,467,468,471 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana, is quashed with all consequential Criminal Misc. No. M- 33122 of 2010 -5- proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. March 04, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE