Crl. Misc. No. 26337 of 2009 and -1- Crl. Misc. No. M-11600 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 26337 of 2009 and Crl. Misc. No. M-11600 of 2009 Date of decision: 22.5.2009 Parmod Sharma and others ….. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ….. Respondents Present: Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Ms. Nisha Goel, Advocate for respondent No.2 with respondent No.2 Mohinder Mohan in person. **** S.S. SARON, J. Crl. Misc. No. 26337 of 2009 The chargesheet dated 16.5.2009 (Annexure P3) attached with Crl. Misc. application is taken on record. Crl. Misc. stands disposed of. Crl. Misc. No. M-11600 of 2009 Ms. Nisha Goel, Advocate has filed affidavit of Mohinder Mohan (respondent No.2). The same is taken on record. Mohinder Mohan (respondent No.2) is present in Court and is identified by his counsel Ms. Nisha Goel, Advocate. It is stated in the affidavit by the complainant Mohinder Mohan (respondent No.2) that he does not want to proceed Crl. Misc. No. 26337 of 2009 and -2- Crl. Misc. No. M-11600 of 2009 with the case as the matter has been compromised with the intervention of respectable in the family. It is stated by him that he has no objection to the quashing of FIR (Annexure P1) and that he is making his statement of his own free will and desire and without any kind of pressure or undue influence. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioners seek quashing of FIR (Annexure P1) that has been registered against them for the offence under Section 381 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short) on the statement of Mohinder Mohan (respondent No.2). It is being alleged by the complainant that he is doing cloth business in Krishna Market, Ferozepur City since long. In the year 1990, Parmod Sharma (petitioner No.1) was working with him and gradually family links were established between him and petitioner No.1. She had won the confidence of the complainant/respondent No.2. After working for 7-8 years, Parmod Sharma (petitioner No.1) requested that she was a poor lady and her son Nitin Sharma had grown up and since her father Sham Sunder had no business, therefore, the complainant/respondent No.2 should help her in establishing the business. On a point of this, Nitin Sharma (petitioner No.2) son of Parmod Sharma (petitioner No.1) and Sham Sunder (petitioner No.3) father of Parmod Sharma (petitioner No.1) were given some business activities under the supervision of the complainant. The complainant had full confidence in Parmod Sharma (petitioner No.1) and he used to give her (petitioner No.1) account books along with signed cheque books as the complainant used to go out often for his business work. In his absence, these cheques were being given to the creditors. In 1999, the complainant came to know that Parmod Sharma (petitioner No.1) was misusing the faith which the complainant/respondent No.2 had deposed in her, her son Nitin Sharma (petitioner No.2) and her father Sham Sunder (petitioner No.3) had ill-intentions and were doing wrong in various transactions. The complainant/respondent No.2 was asked the petitioner as to why they were committed fraud in the business. On this, they Crl. Misc. No. 26337 of 2009 and -3- Crl. Misc. No. M-11600 of 2009 accepted their fault and sought for forgiveness. They promised that they would return the money by selling their land and because of that, the complainant did not initiate any proceedings against the petitioners. Later the complainant was surprised to know that two criminal complaints had been filed against him in the Court at Ferozepur for the offence under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by Anoop Kumar Sharma and Shivdeep Singh Sandhu, Advocates. Anoop Kumar Sharma threatened the complainant on phone that he should give Rs.5 lacs as two cheques were given to him by Parmod Sharma (petitioner No.1). On the basis of the said two cheques, he would send the complainant to jail. After that telephone, the complainant got a mental set back and he checked his record and he found that from his cheque book of Jammu and Kashmir Bank, Shastri Market, Amritsar various cheques as detailed in the FIR were missing. From the circumstances, it was clear that Parmod Sharma (petitioner No.1) had misused the faith which the complainant had deposed in her and her son Nitin Sharma (petitioner No.2) as also Sham Sunder (petitioner No.3). They stole the cheques of the complainant eight years back and out of these cheques some of them were given to their relatives and aforementioned Anoop Kumar Sharma working as Advocate in Ferozepur and his other colleague Shivdeep Singh Sandhu had filed complaints for extracting money. It is submitted that the complainant had no link or business with Anoop Kumar Sharma and Shivdeep Singh Sharma and they were not know to him. According to the complainant, the petitioners had committed fraud in the business and had not returned money to him. Account No.6479 of Jammu and Kashmir Bank, Shastri Market Amritsar of which the cheques had been stolen was in fact closed and the cheques which were being used to black-mail were of the year 1998. Therefore, it was request that on account of the theft and conspiracy as also blackmailing, action be taken against the petitioners. The Police after investigating the case filed charge report (challan). On the basis of documents and material, the petitioners have been charged vide order Crl. Misc. No. 26337 of 2009 and -4- Crl. Misc. No. M-11600 of 2009 dated 16.5.2009 (Annexure P3) by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar on the allegations that in the year 1998 in the area of Krishna Market, Parmod Sharma (petitioner No.1) being Clerk of Mohinder Mohan (respondent No.2) in such capacity was entrusted with cheque books of the firm owned by Mohinder Mohan (respondent No.2) and Parmod Sharma (petitioner No.1) in connivance with her co- accused Nitin Sharma (petitioner No.2) and Sham Sunder (petitioner No.3) committed criminal breach of trust with respect to 10 cheques of the cheque books and thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 408 IPC within the cognizance of the Court. After framing of charge on 16.5.2009, no evidence in the case so far has been led. However, the parties have been compromised. In terms of the affidavit that has been filed by the complainant Madan Mohan (respondent No.2), it is submitted that he does not want to pursue the case as the matter has been compromised. The dispute in the case is of purely personal in nature and relates to business transaction between the employer and his employee. The offence under Section 408 IPC for which the petitioners have been charged no doubt is compoundable, however, that does not preclude this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings. In Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2008 (4) RCR (Criminal) 102 compounded the offence which related to repayment of loan amount by the Company. Criminal proceedings against the Company were initiated for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471-A IPC and also under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Charge-sheet had been submitted. The Bank had also filed a civil suit for recovery of amount. Thereafter, the Bank and the company entered into a compromise in the civil suit. The company paid the entire amount. The criminal proceedings were quashed though offences except Section 420 IPC were not compoundable. It was observed that technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings. Besides, it was observed that continuance of the prosecution after Crl. Misc. No. 26337 of 2009 and -5- Crl. Misc. No. M-11600 of 2009 compromise had been arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise. Therefore, in the said case, the dispute between the Company and the Bank which had been raised on the basis of compromise arrived at by them and dues of the Bank had been cleared and the Bank did not appear to have any further claim against the Company, the FIR was quashed. In the present case, the dispute as already noticed is of personal in nature. In Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 582 it was observed by the Supreme Court as follows: “We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where by 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 the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” Besides, in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 a larger Bench of this Court observed as follows:- “ 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 Crl. Misc. No. 26337 of 2009 and -6- Crl. Misc. No. M-11600 of 2009 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) of the CrPC, or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the CrPC. 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 CrPC is sued to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity 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 CrPC 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”. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that when the parties have amicably resolved their dispute, the continuance of further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) and chargesheet (Annexure P3) would be an exercise in futility. Crl. Misc. No. 26337 of 2009 and -7- Crl. Misc. No. M-11600 of 2009 Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and the case FIR No. 40 dated 17.5.2005 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Amritsar for the offences under Section 381 IPC and all consequential and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom shall stand quashed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE May 22, 2009 amit