In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-54802 of 2007 ..... Date of decision:31.1.2009 Harbans Singh and others .....Petitioners v. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. G.S. Punia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. Gurinder Singh-complainant (respondent No.2) and Mr. Harinder Singh (respondent No.3) sons of Balwant Singh present in person identified by ASI Ajaib Singh, Police Station, Gobindgarh. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.’ – for short) has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.125 dated 17.11.2000 (Annexure-P.1) registered at Police Station, Gobindgarh for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B Indian Penal Code (`IPC’ – for short), the report (Annexure-P.2) filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the order dated 26.5.2004 (Annexure-P.3) framing charges as the dispute between the petitioner and the complainant (respondent No.2) has been compromised. The complainant (respondent No.2) Gurinder Singh submitted an application dated 17.11.2000 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib for registration of a FIR against the petitioners. On the Cr. Misc. No.M-54802/2007 [2] basis of the said application the impugned FIR dated 17.11.2000 (Annexure-P.1) has been registered. The prosecution case is that Maghi Singh son of Udham Singh resident of Nasrali, Tehsil Amloh was owner of the land in dispute which is situated in the revenue limits of Village Nasrali. After his death, there was a dispute with respect to the estate of Maghi Singh between Karamjit Kaur widow of Maghi Singh and her daughters on the one side and Surjit Kaur, Karnail Kaur and Harbhajan Kaur daughters of Maghi Singh through his wife Karambir Kaur on the other. The civil suit was decreed by the Court of Additional Senior Sub Judge, Amloh on 5.2.1993 in favour of Surjit Kaur, Karnail Kaur and Harbhajan Kaur and against Karamjit Kaur widow of Maghi Singh and Ratti Rani daughter of Maghi Singh. After the decree of the Civil Court of Additional Senior Sub Judge, Amloh in favour Surjit Kaur, Karnail Kaur and Harbhajan Kaur; Karnail Kaur and Harbhajan Kaur entered into an agreement dated 5.3.1993 to sell their 2/3 share of land for consideration of Rs.4.00 Lacs in favour of Gurinder Singh-complainant (respondent No.2) and his brother Harinder Singh (respondent No.3). Similarly, Surjit Kaur also executed agreement dated 25.2.1993 and 26.7.1993 to sell her 1/3rd share in favour of the complainant (respondent No.2) and his brother (respondent No.3) for consideration of Rs.3,50,000/-. The allegations of the complainant are that the entire sale consideration was paid and nothing remained to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. It is alleged that Harbhajan Kaur and Karnail Kaur also executed a general power of attorney on 20.10.1993 in favour Balwant Singh, the father of respondents No.2 and 3. Surjit Kaur also executed the general power of attorney on 26.7.1993 in favour of Cr. Misc. No.M-54802/2007 [3] aforesaid Balwant Singh, father of respondents No.2 and 3. Balwant Singh on the basis of the said general power of attorneys on 7.4.1994 executed two registered sale deeds of land measuring 26 Bighas 15 Biswas on behalf of Harbhajan Kaur and of land measuring 12 Bighas 15 Biswas on behalf of Karnail Kaur. Besides, two sale deeds of land measuring 16 Bighas 19 Biswas each were executed by Balwant Singh on 8.4.1994 and 11.4.1994 on behalf of Surjit Kaur. In this manner sale deeds of land measuring 87 Bighas 8 Biswas were executed in favour of the complainant (respondent No.2) and his brother Harinder Singh. After the execution of the sale deed of land by Surjit Kaur, Karnail Kaur and Harbhajan Kaur they sold the land which was sold to the complainant-respondent No.2 and his brother (respondent No.3) to different persons the details of which are mentioned in the FIR. When mutation was to be sanctioned in favour of the complainant (respondent No.2) and his brother (respondent No.3), the mutation was contested by Surjit Kaur, Harbhajan Kaur and Karnail Kaur. It was alleged by the complainant that the sale deed dated 20.10.1997 was executed in favour of Baljinder Singh and others in order to cheat the complainant (respondent No.2) and his brother Harinder Singh (respondent No.3). On these allegations, the impugned FIR No.125 dated 17.11.2000 (Annexure- P.1) was registered for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 read with Section 120-B IPC. After investigation of the case, the Police filed the charge-report (challan) (Annexure-P.2) in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. On the basis of the documents and material on record, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 26.5.2004 framed the charges (Annexure-P.3) (Colly.). Cr. Misc. No.M-54802/2007 [4] It may also be noticed that Surjit Kaur had filed a civil suit for declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 7.4.1994/8.4.1994 registered on 11.4.1994 bearing Vasika No.57 and sale deed executed on 11.4.1994 registered on 18.4.1994 bearing Vasika No.114 with respect to land measuring 33 Bighas 18 Biswas being part of the land measuring 134 Bighas 15 Biswas in Village Nasrali, Tehsil Amloh are fraudulent, null and void, result of misrepresentation, exploitation of the confidence, illiteracy and fiduciary relations and misconduct and the illegal sale deeds did not bind the plaintiff Surjit Kaur or affect her title or rights and the same were liable to be cancelled and struck down. Relief of permanent injunction was also claimed for restraining the defendants No.1 and 2 i.e. the complainant (respondent No.2) and his brother Harinder Singh (respondent No.3) from alienating or cause to alienate the land measuring 33 Bighas 18 Biswas or any part there of and from creating any sort of charge, in any manner, over the said property on the basis of oral or documentary evidence. The suit of the plaintiff Surjit Kaur was dismissed with costs by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amloh vide his judgment and decree dated 17.4.2002. The sale deed dated 7.4.1994/8.4.1994 registered on 11.4.1994 bearing Vasika No.57 and sale deed executed on 11.4.1994 and registered on 18.4.1994 bearing Vasika No.114 with respect to land measuring 33 Bighas 18 Biswas as detailed in the head note of the plaint, it was observed, could not be declared as null and void. The order of the trial Court was upheld by the District Judge and the appeal of the plaintiff Surjit Kaur was dismissed on 12.6.2003. Regular Second Appeal No.4528 of 2003 was filed in this Court by Surjit Kaur which was dismissed as withdrawn by this Cr. Misc. No.M-54802/2007 [5] Court vide order dated 15.11.2007 (Annexure-P.5). The Regular Second Appeal No.4529 of 2003 filed by Smt. Karnail Kaur was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 27.9.2004 (Annexure-P.6). Another fact that has been stated in the petition is that RSA No.4529 of 2003 which arose out of the civil litigation initiated by Smt. Karnail Kaur was ordered to be heard with RSA No.4578 of 2000. The later RSA, it is submitted, pertains to the suit filed by Harbhajan Kaur and Karnail Kaur wherein the gift deeds No.1676 dated 9.10.1987, 2093 dated 1.12.1987 and 1074 dated 18.7.1988 executed by Maghi Singh in favour of Karamjit Kaur stated to be his widow was challenged to be null and void. It was claimed that said Karamjit Kaur and her daughter Ratti Rani had no right, title and interest in the suit land. It is submitted that now with the intervention of the respectables, respondent No.2 and his brother (respondent No.3) have entered into a compromise and the matter has been settled between the parties. In terms of the compromise it was agreed that the plaintiffs-appellants would withdraw their RSAs challenging the sale deeds in favour of the complainant (respondent No.2) and his brother (respondent No.3). It is in terms of the said compromise that RSA Nos.4528 and 4529 of 2003 have been withdrawn vide orders dated 15.11.2007 (Annexure-P.5) and dated 27.9.2004 (Annexure-P.6). The complainant (respondent No.2) and his brother (respondent No.3) had also agreed not to pursue the criminal proceedings on the basis of the impugned FIR No.125 dated 17.11.2000 (Annexure-P.1). In this regard Gurinder Singh (respondent No.2) and Harinder Singh (respondent No.3) have deposed affidavits dated 8.12.2007 (Annexures-P.7 and P.8). It is stated by respondents No.2 and 3 that the regular second appeals pending in the High Cr. Misc. No.M-54802/2007 [6] Court have been withdrawn and they have agreed not to pursue the criminal proceedings. Shri G.S. Punia, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the dispute between the parties was primarily civil in nature and, therefore, the civil litigation having been settled, the FIR is liable to be quashed. It is contended that the offence under Section 420 IPC is compoundable and even otherwise the offences which are non- compoundable can be quashed by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that in fact the criminal proceedings had been initiated as a counter-blast to the civil proceedings with a view to pressurize the petitioners. In any case, the matter having been amicably settled, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. Respondents No.2 and 3 are present in Court and are identified by ASI Ajaib Singh of Police Station Gobindgarh who is also present. Respondents No.2 and 3 have stated that the dispute has been settled and they have no objection to the quashing of the FIR. It is stated that they have settled the matter of their own free will and desire and without any kind of pressure or undue influence. Learned counsel for the State has, however, opposed the quashing of the FIR. It is submitted that the offence only under Section 420 IPC is compoundable and those under Sections 467 and 468 IPC are non- compoundable. Therefore, it is submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed. Besides, it is submitted that the offences as mentioned in the FIR are serious. Cr. Misc. No.M-54802/2007 [7] I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter and with the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and for the State have gone through the record of the case. The facts as have been narrated above would show that dispute in the case relates to transfer of land in favour of persons other than the complainant (respondent No.2) and his brother (respondent No.3) and that too after the same had been sold to the complainant (respondent No.2) and his brother (respondent No.3). The civil dispute in the case has been amicably settled. The regular second appeals have been withdrawn by Smt. Surjit Kaur and Karnail Kaur vide orders dated 15.11.2007 (Annexure-P.5) and 27.9.2004 (Annexure-P.6). The complainant-respondent No.2 and his brother have deposed affidavits dated 8.12.2007 (Annexures-P.7 and P.8) wherein it is stated that they had entered into a compromise with the accused out of Court and it was agreed that the accused shall withdraw the regular second appeals pending in the High Court challenging the judgments in the civil suits wherein sale deeds in their favour had been challenged. They had agreed not to pursue the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, it is stated that the accused have withdrawn their regular second appeals and they have no objection if the criminal proceedings initiated on the basis of FIR No.125 dated 17.11.2000 (Annexure-P.1) for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Gobindgarh are quashed. Therefore, indeed civil litigation has been withdrawn and is compromised. In Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2008 (4) RCR (Cr.) 102 (SC), the CBI had filed a charge-sheet against five persons alleging commission of offences under Section 120-B read with Sections Cr. Misc. No.M-54802/2007 [8] 420, 467, 468 and 471-A IPC read with Sections 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the charge-sheet, the appellant before the Supreme Court in the said case was made accused No.3 and the Company, in respect of which he was the former Managing Director, M/s Neemuch Emballage Limited, Mumbai was made accused No.4. The other three accused were officials of the Andhra Bank. The accused No.4-Company was granted financial assistance by the Andhra Bank under various facilities. On account of default in repayment of the loans, the Bank filed a suit for recovery of the amount payable. Besides, a complaint was made by the General Manager and Chief Vigilance Officer of the Bank on the basis of which investigations were carried out by the CBI, which filed charge-sheet in the Court of Special Judge. The allegations in the charge-sheet were that the accused persons conspired with each other and fraudulently diverted the funds of the Andhra Bank. Offences alleging forgery were also included in the charge-sheet. The civil suit between the Company and the Bank in which the appellant before the Supreme Court was also a party was disposed of on a compromise arrived at between the parties, which was reduced into writing and was filed in the suit. On the basis of the consent terms, the suit was compromised upon the defendants agreeing to pay the amounts due as per the schedule mentioned in the consent terms. One of the clauses of the consent terms envisaged that neither party has any claim against the other and the parties withdraw all the allegations and counter-allegations made against each other. On the basis of the consent terms the accused-appellant before the Supreme Court filed an Cr. Misc. No.M-54802/2007 [9] application for discharge from the criminal complaint, in respect of which charge-sheet had been filed by the CBI. The said application seeking discharge was rejected by the Special Judge, CBI which was challenged before the Bombay High Court. The High Court rejected the prayer of the accused therein for his discharge from the criminal case. The Supreme Court held that the dispute between the Company and the Bank in the said case had been set at rest on the basis of compromise arrived at by them whereunder the dues of the Bank had been cleared and the Bank did not appear to have further claim against the Company. However, what remained was that the accused therein is said to have created certain documents in order to avail credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled to. It was observed that the dispute involved in the said case had overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facets. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2003 (2) RCR (Cr.) 888 (SC), wherein it was held that if for securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing which, however, is to be exercised in the facts and circumstances of each case. On the strength of B.S. Joshi’s case (supra) and on an overall view of the facts as indicated and the fact that the compromise had been arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also the consent terms filed in the suit by the Bank, the Supreme Court was satisfied that it was a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings since the continuation of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties Cr. Misc. No.M-54802/2007 [10] would be a futile exercise. Therefore, in view of the amount having been paid and the compromise entered into with the Bank, the criminal proceedings were quashed. In Manoj Sharma v. State of Haryana and others, 2008 (4) RCR (Cr.) 827 (SC), the accused therein had sold the car of the complainant by forging documents. FIR for the offences under Sections 468, 471 and 420 IPC was registered. The parties entered into a compromise. The offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC even though not compoundable, the FIR was quashed. It was observed in cases like those akin to civil nature the proceedings can be quashed by the High Court if the parties have come to an amicable settlement even though the offences are not compoundable. In the present case, as has already been noticed, the offences that have been attributed are under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 120-B IPC and the parties have settled their civil dispute and the regular second appeals have been withdrawn. The complainant (respondent No.2) and his brother (respondent No.3) have also agreed that in view of the civil suit being withdrawn they did not want to pursue the criminal proceedings. The contentions of the learned State counsel that the offences under Sections 467 and 468 IPC are not compoundable and, therefore, the proceedings are not liable to be quashed is devoid of merit. The fact that the said offences are non-compoundable would not come in the way to quash the proceedings on the basis of compromise as Section 320 Cr.P.C. providing for non- compounding of the said offences does not limit or affect the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings particularly when the contesting parties have resolved their dispute which is akin to civil dispute. Cr. Misc. No.M-54802/2007 [11] For the foregoing reasons, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and case FIR No.125 dated 17.11.2000 (Annexure-P.1) registered at Police Station Gobindgarh for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC, the charge-report (Annexure-P.2) under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the order framing charges (Annexure-P.3) and all consequential and subsequent proceedings in pursuance thereof shall stand quashed. January 31, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*