Criminal Misc. No. M- 11298 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 11298 of 2010 Date of decision:-30.3.2011 Gurbax Kaur alias Bakhso ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl.A.G. Punjab for respondent No.1-State. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.173 dated 07.6.2007 under Sections 420,406 and 120-B IPC and under Section 24 of Emmigration Act, registered at Police Station City, Phagwara, District Kapurthala (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). As per FIR, accused Raj Kumar, Baksho wife of Raj Kumar, Bobby brother of Raj Kumar and Prince son of Raj Kumar used to do the business of sending the persons to foreign Arab countries. The accused persons met the complainant and offered him to go abroad. The complainant alongwith six other persons gave Rs.85,000/-each to the accused. The accused after giving them photostat copy of visa and by taking their passports fled to abroad. After that the accused did not pay the money to complainant and others. In this background, the present FIR was lodged against the accused. Criminal Misc. No. M- 11298 of 2010 -2- During the pendency of the trial, parties have entered into compromise. The petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- lump sum to respondent-Nathi Ram as per terms and conditions of the compromise (Annexure P-2). In compliance of order dated 25.1.2011, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara has sent a report verifying the contents of the compromise. Statement of complainant Nathi Ram was recorded that the compromise has been effected on 21.2.2009. The said agreement was got effected between complainant and petitioner without any pressure. As per compromise, the accused Gurbax Kaur has agreed to pay Rs.1,70,000/- to the complainant in monthly installments of Rs.15,000/- each. He has received Rs.45,000/- from the accused and Rs.1,25,000/- is payable towards accused Gurbax Kaur in monthly installments. He has received ten cheques bearing Nos.182951 to 182960 post dated from 09.5.2011 to 09.11.2012 drawn on Bank of India Goraya Branch, Goraya for Rs.12,500/- each. Statement of accused Gurbax Kaur also recorded in which she has stated that as per compromise, she has agreed to pay Rs.1,70,00/- to complainant-Nathi Ram in equal monthly installments of Rs.15,000/- each. She has stated that ten cheques bearing bearing Nos.182951 to 182960 post dated from 09.5.2011 to 09.11.2012 drawn on Bank of India Goraya Branch, Goraya for Rs.12,500/- each have been issued in favour of complainant. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 11298 of 2010 -3- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 11298 of 2010 -4- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 11298 of 2010 -5- Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), FIR No.173 dated 07.6.2007 under Sections 420,406 and 120-B IPC and under Section 24 of Emmigration Act, registered at Police Station City, Phagwara, District Kapurthala, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. March 30, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE