Crl. Misc. No. M-25458 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-25458 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision :15.3.2011 Harbans Singh .......... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present : Mr. J.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl. A.G., Punjab. **** RITU BAHRI, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 05 dated 10.1.2003 under Sections 406, 420 IPC registered at Police Station Division No.1, Jallandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. As per the FIR, the allegations are that the petitioner stood guarantor for the financing of one truck with 14 tyres bearing No. PB-13-E4671 and executed the Hire Purchase Agreement. The accused paid only Rs. 40,860/- and they had not returned the money Crl. Misc. No. M-25458 of 2010 -2- in the monthly installments and have induced the complainant to deliver the money as advance for the hire purchase of above said vehicle and caused wrongful loss to the complainant company. The main accused in this case i.e. Jagjit Singh son of Harbans Singh died in an accident on 9.5.2003. Now with the intervention of friends the entire dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and they have entered into a compromise. In compliance of the order dated 19.1.2011, passed by this Court, a report has been received from the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar. As per this report, statement of Harbans Singh Chandi, Diriector M/s Fair Deal General Fianance Company has been recorded. Wherein he has stated that the matter has been compromised with the accused and he does not wish to pursue the FIR against the accused. It has also been recorded that, in view of the statement made by complainant Harbans Singh Chandi, the matter has been compromised without any pressure. 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, Crl. Misc. No. M-25458 of 2010 -3- (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 amity 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-25458 of 2010 -4- 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 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) R.C.R. (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 :- Crl. Misc. No. M-25458 of 2010 -5- “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 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 a re, cannot afford.” This Court in the case of Parambir Singh Gill Vs. Malkiat Kaur 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 256, has been pleased to lay down as under :- “Criminal Procedure Code, Section 320- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sections 3 and 4- Non Compoundable offence- of the seven accused, complainant entering into compromise with one accused- Proceedings qua one accused only quashed by High Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.” Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (supra), Parambir Singh Gill Vs. Malkiat Kaur (supra) and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another Crl. Misc. No. M-25458 of 2010 -6- (supra), FIR No. 05 dated 10.1.2003 under Sections 406, 420 IPC registered at Police Station Division No.1, Jallandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise is quashed qua the petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. 15.3.2011 (RITU BAHRI) 'sp' JUDGE