Criminal Misc. No. M- 1848 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 1848 of 2011 Date of decision:- 04.04.2011 Sewa Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Anil Kumar Lamdharia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Narinder Lucky, Advocate for respondent No.2. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.58 dated 24.11.2006 under Sections 419,420,467,468,471 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Fatehgarh Sahib, District Fatehgarh Sahib (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise. As per FIR, the dispute is between daughter and father. Complainant was owner of ½ share of land comprised in Khewat Khatoni No.136P 171 Khasra No.40//17(5-0), 24/1(2-4) situated at Sirhind . Her father was also owner of ½ share in the same land. His father has got executed sale deed of her land in fake manner in the name of Nihal Singh son of Manohar Singh resident of Sirhind vide Vasika No.1251 dated 13.6.2005 in connivance Criminal Misc. No. M- 1848 of 2011 -2- with Lambardar Gurmail Singh, Bara Sirhind, Nihal Singh son of Manohar Singh and one unknown woman. Gurmail Singh Lambardar had acted as an attesting witness in the sale deed. Mutation of the same vide No.10203 was sanctioned. Sewa Singh produced some unknown woman in place of complainant before the Tehsil Office and got her photograph clicked on Vasika and in this way the accused persons in connivance with each other committed a crime. Complainant came to know this whole episode on 14.9.2006. In this background, the FIR was registered. The dispute exists between father and daughter and which has now been compromised and they do not wish to prolong the said criminal proceedings against each other. In compliance of order dated 28.1.2011, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Fatehgarh Sahib has sent a report verifying the contents of the compromise. As per this report, on 28.2.2011 parties appeared before the trial Court and recorded their statements. Complainant-Kamaljit Kaur stated that compromise has been effected between her and Sewa Singh accused, who is her father in relation. Similarly, accused Sewa Singh, Gurmail Singh and Nihal Singh also stated that the matter has been compromised between the parties. 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. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, (1980)1 SCC 63, Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the Criminal Misc. No. M- 1848 of 2011 -3- 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 has been made to the offences against human body other than murder and Criminal Misc. No. M- 1848 of 2011 -4- 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 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.58 dated 24.11.2006 under Sections 419,420,467,468,471 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Fatehgarh Sahib, District Fatehgarh Sahib, is quashed Criminal Misc. No. M- 1848 of 2011 -5- with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. April 04, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE