Criminal Misc. No. M- 4808 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 4808 of 2011 Date of decision:-22.3.2011 Baljit Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Vishal Goel, Advocate for respondent No.2-complainant. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 141 dated 11.7.2010 under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, registered at Police Station Raikot, District Ludhiana (Rural) (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). Criminal Misc. No. M- 4808 of 2011 -2- As per FIR, complainant Lal Singh had submitted Rs.6,17,000/- to petitioner Baljit on interest @ 1.50% per hundred and had received the receipts bearing the seal of the firm of petitioner and the signatures of Baljit Singh shareholder. Complainant deposited the amount to the petitioner for sending his grand son Avtar Singh (Tari) abroad. When demanded the money back, the petitioner did not return the money. In this background, present FIR was registered against the petitioner. During the investigation of the FIR with the intervention of respectables and the relations, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. Copy of compromise is Annexure P-2. Affidavit in this regard of complainant Lal Singh has been placed on record. It has been agreed between the parties that they withdraw all the cases registered against each other and efforts will be made to get the proceedings dismissed in favour of second party. In compliance of order dated 15.2.2011, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jagraon has sent a report verifying the contents of the compromise. As per this report, on 18.3.2011 parties appeared before the trial Court and get recorded their statements. Complainant recorded his statement to the effect that due to intervention of respectable of the locality, compromise has been effected with the accused without any pressure from any corner and has no objection if the petition filed in the High Court for quashing of FIR, is allowed. Statement of petitioner-Baljit Singh also recorded that the matter has been compromised vide writing dated 30.12.2010 with the intervention of respectable of the locality and the same is without any pressure. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 4808 of 2011 -3- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 4808 of 2011 -4- 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 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.” Criminal Misc. No. M- 4808 of 2011 -5- Consequently, in view of the compromise effected and in view of 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. 141 dated 11.7.2010 under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, registered at Police Station Raikot, District Ludhiana (Rural), is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. March 22, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE