Criminal Misc. No. M-32253 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Misc. No. M-32253 of 2008 Date of Decision: 27.1.2009 Ranjit Singh alias Phuli …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mrs. Shahshi Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1-State. None for respondent No.2. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred seeking quashing of FIR No. 96 dated 23.8.2006 registered at Police Station Rahon, District Nawanshahr, under Sections 457 & 380 IPC, in which subsequently charge has been framed only under Section 411 IPC. Counsel for the petitioner submit that from evidence gathered against the petitioner, only offence found against the petitioner for which he was charged fall under Section 411 IPC and same is compoundable. Therefore, on basis of compromise (Annexure P2), the charge framed against the petitioner and all subsequent proceedings thereto be Criminal Misc. No. M-32253 of 2008 2 quashed. Brief facts which emerge from the perusal of petition are that the petitioner was named as accused in case FIR NO. 96 dated 23.8.2006 registered at Police Station Rahon, District Nawanshahr, under Sections 457 & 380 IPC. The matter was investigated. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (challan) was submitted. Arguments on the framing of charge were heard. Trial Court came to conclusion that no offence under Sections 457 & 380 IPC is made out and the petitioner could only be charged under Section 411 IPC. In the present case, FIR was lodged by Balwinder Kaur. She stated that she is a permanent citizen and resident of Canada. She had come to India on 8.7.2006 along with son Parminder Singh. On 21.8.2006 she found that doors of her house were open and somebody by opening the iron bolts had taken away Rs.2,00,000/- in Indian currency which also included American and Canadian Dollars. During the pendency of proceedings, compromise (Annexure P2 ) was effected on 27.5.2008. Case in the trail Court was fixed for 4.9.2008 for prosecution evidence. An application was filed by Balwinder Kaur on 28.5.2008 to prepone the case and compound the offence. Application has been annexed as Annexure P3 with the present petition. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nawanshahr, on 78.6.2008, declined the application and stated that no purpose would be served by recording the statement of complainant, in her capacity as Duty Magistrate. Aggrieved against this order, vide Annexure P5, Petitioner filed a petition in this Court which was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 12.6.2008 directing the trial Court/Duty Criminal Misc. No. M-32253 of 2008 3 Magistrate to decide the application for compounding of offence within two weeks from the receipt of certified copy of the order. The Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nawanshahr, on 3.7.2008, recorded the statement of Balwinder Kaur, complainant. The statement has been annexed as Annexure P6 with the present petition. She stated therein that she had settled her dispute, therefore, the offence be compounded. Learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nawanshahr, on 3.7.2008 dismissed the application under Section 320 Cr.P.C. for compounding the offence on the ground that under Section 320 Cr.P.C. offence under Section 411 IPC can only be compounded with the permission of the Court when the value of stolen property do not exceed Rs.2,000/- Aggrieved against this impugned order (Annexure P7), whereby permission to compound the offence was declined on the ground that amount of stolen property received was more than Rs.2,000/-, present petition has been filed. Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 464. In that case compounding of offence was refused as amount was more than Rs.250/- for an offence under Section 406 IPC. Hon'ble the Apex Court, in the aforesaid judgment, held as under:- “5. It is on the basis of this compromise that the application was filed in the High Court for quashing of proceedings which has been dismissed by the impugned order. We notice from a reading of Criminal Misc. No. M-32253 of 2008 4 the FIR and the other documents on record that the dispute was purely a personal one between two contesting parties and that it arose out of extensive business dealings between them and that there was absolutely no public policy involved in the nature of the allegations made against the accused. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise and also in the light of the fact that the complainant has on 11.1.2004 passed away and the possibility of a conviction being recorded has thus to be ruled out. 6. 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 a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law. 7. We see from the impugned order that the Criminal Misc. No. M-32253 of 2008 5 learned Judge has confused compounding of an offence with the quashing of proceedings. The outer limit of Rs.250/- which has led to the dismissal of the application is an irrelevant factor in the later case. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and in the peculiar facts of the case direct that FIR No. 155 dated 17.11.2001 PS Kotwali, Amritsar, an all proceedings connected therewith shall be deemed to be quashed”. Counsel for the State is unable to cite any judgment contrary to the judgment relied upon by counsel for the Petitioner. In the present case, dispute being personal between the parties, has been resolved; complainant being satisfied; has made a statement in the Court of law, therefore, there is no use in continuing with the present proceedings. Therefore, the present petition is accepted. The impugned FIR along with charge framed under Section 411 IPC against the petitioner is quashed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge January 27, 2009 “DK”