CRM No. M 20697 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 20697 of 2010 Date of decision: 16.05.2011 Surjit Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. S S Sidhu, Advocate for for the petitioner Ms Neelam, AAG, Punjab Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 2 - complainant -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 10 dated 24.01.1992 under Section 380, 427 IPC registered at Police Station Kotwali Bathinda, District Bathinda on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner states the present FIR was got registered at the instance of respondent No. 2 against the present CRM No. M 20697 of 2010 2 petitioner and two other accused, namely, Labh Singh and his wife Angrej Kaur. In the said FIR, it was alleged that the complainant along with Jagdish Kumar, Ashok Kumar both sons of Hans Raj and others purchased land measuring 4450 sq yards, situated at Dube Colony Paras Ram Nagar Bathinda for installing Gatta Factory in the year 1984. Thereafter, the complainant party agreed to sell the land in question to one Surjit Singh son of Munshi Singh for a consideration of Rs.3,25,000/- and received Rs.90,000/- as earnest money from the petitioner. The sale deed was to be executed on 15.06.1990 but Surjit Singh could not arrange the money for registration of the sale deed. Thereafter, Surjit Singh filed a civil suit No. 138 dated 23.02.1993 against Ashok Kumar son of Hans Raj for recovery of Rs.1,80,000/- as the defendant failed to execute the sale deed. The same was partly decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the complainant party made the payment of Rs.90,000/- to the petitioner and the matter was settled amicably for all time to come. To this effect, the complainant has also filed his affidavit dated 15.07.2010 (P2). In his petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has also mentioned that during this period, the petitioner was neither arrested nor summoned by the police in regard to the above said FIR as far as knowledge of the petitioners, he is not declared PO. Whereas, on 29.11.2010, it was informed by the learned State counsel that the petitioner is a proclaimed offender since 07.10.1992. It was also mentioned in the reply filed by the State that copy of the order declaring the petitioner as PO is not available in the police record. It was also stated that that the file of judicial Court is also not traceable in the record Room. Accordingly, the Chief Judicial CRM No. M 20697 of 2010 3 Magistrate, Bathinda was directed to submit his report with respect of the missing file and also to report as to whether any order was passed declaring the present petitioner as proclaimed offender or not. In pursuance thereto, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda has submitted its report vide letter dated 18.01.2011 after recording statement of relevant persons. As per the said report, FIR No. 10 dated 24.01.1992 under Section 380, 427 IPC was registered against Angrej Kaur and others at Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda. Accused Angrej Kaur was arrested on 06.04.1992 but accused Labh Singh and Surjit Singh could not be arrested and they were declared Proclaimed offender by the Court of Shri Gurdial Singh, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda vide order dated 07.10.1992 and challan was presented in the Court and case was transferred to the Court of Shri A S Grewal, the then Judicial Magistrate II Class, Bathinda and then said case was decided by Shri S K Sachdeva, the then JMIC Bathinda vide judgment dated 07.06.1993 and file was consigned to the Record Room, vide Goshwara No. 165/93. But the said file is not available in the Record Room and the same has been misplaced from the Record Room. From the above, it is clear that the PO proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. However, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney vs. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others reported as (1980) 1 SCC 63, held that:- “29. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320 (9) of the Cr.P.C. or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.” CRM No. M 20697 of 2010 4 While relying upon the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, this Court in the case of Jobanjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and others (Crl. M No. 10033 of 2009, decided on 29.07.2009) quashed the proceedings declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender by observing as under:- “Keeping in view the enunciation of law as referred to above and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case, once the matter has been compromised between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the prosecution. Accordingly, order dated 23.12.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar (Annexure P-3) declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender, FIR No. 38 dated 05.07.2000, registered at Police Station Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar, under Sections 323, 325, 341, 148, 149 IPC (Annexure P1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner. Similar view was also held by this Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab and another (CRM M 1238 of 2007, decided on 29.01.2007). Taking into account the fact that the dispute was a matrimonial dispute also coupled with the fact that the matter had been compromised, this Court in the cases of Sarbjit Singh and others v State of Punjab and another (CRM M 52033 of 2007, decided on 27.01.2009), Pushpa Rani v. State of Punjab and another (CRM M 30341 of 2008, decided on 12.01.2010) and Sandeep Singh Brar and others v. State of Punjab and others (CRM M 28857 of 2008, decided on 12.02.2009) quashed the FIR even though the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender as all the CRM No. M 20697 of 2010 5 disputes had been settled by way of compromise. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another-2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has observed as under:- “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 reduced 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 exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.” The Apex Court in the case of 'Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasized in para No. 6 as follows:- “6. We need to emphasize 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 CRM No. M 20697 of 2010 6 technicalities of the law.” The present dispute is purely personal in nature and the compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed. Taking into account the allegations, compromise/affidavit as well as report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda and affidavit of the complainant, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same, in view of the above settled proposition of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 10 dated 24.01.1992 under Section 380, 427 IPC registered at Police Station Kotwali Bathinda, District Bathinda and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed qua the present petitioners. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 16.05.2011 mohan