Crl. Misc. No.M-4984 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-4984 of 2011 Date of decision. 19.05.2011 Jatinder Singh and another ....... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Berjeshwar S. Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioners. Sh. Guninder Singh Brar, AAG, Punjab for respondent No. 1-State. Mr. P.S. Gulani, Advocate for respondent no.2. **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 195 dated 14.09.2006, under Sections 420 and 120-B registered at Police Station City Khanna,(Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-8). The FIR, in question, was registered by Manjit Singh, complainant on the allegations that his brother Balbir Singh son of Gurbachan Singh, r/o Gali no.2 Rupnagar Khanna alongwith his children, owns a house situated in Gali 2, Rup Nagar, Khanna. He handed over the Crl. Misc. No.M-4984 of 2011 --2-- same to Raj Kumar to take care thereof. The General Power of Attorney was with the complainant. A dispute arose with the tenant Raj Kumar and the complainant. Manjit Singh complainant registered a case against Sukhwinder Singh, Jatinder Singh son of Kamaljit Singh and Raj Kumar. The General Power of Attorney was executed by Balvir Singh and his wife. Subsequently Balvir Singh went to America and transferred the General Power of Attorney in favour of his brother Manjit Singh, complainant (now respondent no.2) on 05.07.2006. Even though the house in question, is in the name of Balvir Singh, brother of the complainant. Since the General Power of Attorney has been executed in favour of the complainant, he has every right to initiate the proceedings for quashing as per the compromise. The affidavit of Manjit Singh Bhangu, complainant is Annexure P-2, in which it has stated that the FIR in question was got registered with regard to unauthorized possession of house, owned by his brother Balvir Singh. The matter has been compromised and he has no objection if the FIR, in question, is quashed. The photocopies of affidavits dated 11.10.2006 of Raj Kumar and Sukhwinder Singh, are Annexures P3 and P5 respectively. In compliance of the order dated 16.02.2011, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court and get their statements recorded. Status report has been submitted with regard to the validity of compromise. As per the report of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna, the statement of Manjit Singh, complainant alongwith his Counsel Mr. Mr. Karam Chand, Advocate has been recorded. As per the compromise, the Crl. Misc. No.M-4984 of 2011 --3-- complainant as well as his counsel agreed that a compromise has been effected between the parties voluntarily, free from any pressure or coercion in any manner. A joint statement of Sukhwinder Singh and Jatinder Singh alongwith their Counsel Mr. Suresh Kumar has also recorded by the trial Court to this effect. From the statements of both the parties, the compromise appears to be genuine. As per the contents of the FIR, Manjit Singh, complainant has specifically stated that his brother had gone to America and General Power of Attorney to look after the house in question was with him. This fact has not been disputed by the Counsel for the respondent-State. 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 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 Crl. Misc. No.M-4984 of 2011 --4-- 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), 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. 195 dated 14.09.2006, under Sections 420 and 120-B registered at Police Station City Khanna,(Annexure P-1) is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 19, 2011 dinesh