Criminal Misc.No.M-4740 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-14.9.2010 Arvind Kaur & others ...Petitioners Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh & Neena Sawhney ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Vishal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Gautam Kaile, Advocate for Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The conspectus of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of present petition and emanating from the record, is that Mewa Singh and his wife were the joint owners of house No.6168, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh. They entered into an agreement dated 8.12.2004 to sell the house to Neena Sawhney-complainant (respondent No.2) for a total sale consideration of Rs.26 lacs. The sale deed was to be executed after obtaining the 'No Objection Certificate' from the Chandigarh Administration on or before 15.2.2005. Although, the petitioners were stated to have applied and taken all the steps, but since NOC could not be obtained by the due date, the date for executing the sale deed, was extended to 15.3.2005. The NOC was given by the Chandigarh Housing Board, vide Memo No.3943 dated 7.3.2005, which was received by the petitioners on 16/17.3.2005. Thereafter, finally the date for execution of the sale deed was extended upto 15.4.2005. After obtaining the NOC, the necessary documents for final transfer of the house in question in the name of Ms.Neena Sawhney-respondent No.2 were submitted to the Chandigarh Housing Criminal Misc.No.M-4740 of 2008 2 Board on 24.3.2005, but she failed to make the final payment of the consideration amount. She did not comply with the terms of the agreement and chose to sit silent. Ultimately, complainant showed her inability to comply with the terms of the agreement, in view of objection raised by the Housing Board, Chandigarh in this relevant connection. 2. The petitioners claimed that instead of complying with the terms and conditions of the agreement, the complainant made two complaints dated 31.5.2005 and 2.7.2005 to the Economic Offences Wing, Chandigarh, which were investigated and ultimately filed by the Chandigarh Police. Thereafter the complainant filed civil suit for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants (petitioners) from dispossessing her, claiming herself to be the tenant on the first floor of the said house on the basis of rent deed dated 15.2.2005, but she remained unsuccessful, in this context as well. 3. In this manner, the complainant was again stated to have filed the present complaint with twisted facts and coloured version, on the basis of which, the instant case was registered against the petitioners, vide FIR No.254 dated 12.8.2005 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under sections 380, 448 and 506 read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Manimajra, Chandigarh. 4. Apprehending the arrest, petitioner No.1 and her husband Mewa Singh (since deceased) filed a petition (CRM No.45003 of 2005) for the grant of anticipatory bail, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC, which was allowed, vide order dated 22.8.2005 (Annexure P2), in pursuance of which and on the basis of the settlement, the petitioners were stated to have returned the entire amount to the complainant, vide receipt dated 27.9.2005 (Annexure P3). 5. Levelling a variety of allegations, in all, according to the petitioners that the case against them is totally false and otherwise the criminal prosecution deserves to be quashed on the basis of settlement between the parties. On the basis Criminal Misc.No.M-4740 of 2008 3 of the aforesaid grounds, the petitioners filed the present petition for quashing the FIR (Annexure P1) and all subsequent proceedings thereto on the basis of settlement (Annexure P2) between the parties and payment of entire amount, vide receipt (Annexure P3) in this regard. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted. 7. As is evident from the record that the petitioners claimed that the matter was compromised before this Court, vide settlement/order (Annexure P2), the relevant portion of which is in the following manner:- “Counsel for the petitioners says that as suggested by the complainant they will return the amount to the complainant within one month alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the respective dates of receipts. Counsel for the complainant on instructions from the attorney of his client says that his client does not wish to pursue the criminal case after receiving the amount.” 8. It is not a matter of dispute that the complainant has already received the entire amount from petitioner No.1 and her husband Mewa Singh (since deceased), vide receipt (Annexure P3). The learned State counsel has submitted the report (Annexure PX), in which, the complainant has admitted that she has already received Rs.26 lacs, vide Demand Draft No.337566 from petitioner No.1 and her husband Mewa Singh, vide receipt (Annexure P3), which bears her signatures. 9. The theory of penology/strict punishment underwent a drastic change with the passage of time and the evolution of law of settlement appeared on the scene, which is primarily based on the theory of reformation of the accused. The statutory penal provision pales into insignificance in the wake of insertion of new Chapter XXI-A by Amendment Act No.2 of 2006 and amendment in expansion of scope of compounding the offences under section 320 Cr.PC. At the same time, Criminal Misc.No.M-4740 of 2008 4 the law of settlement of criminal disputes by virtue of compromise is not res- integra and is well settled. The clear and explicit intention of the Legislature was transformed in reality by Hon'ble Apex Court in cases Manoj Sharma v. State & Ors. 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 827; B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana 2003 (2) RCR (Crl.) 888 (SC) and Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052. 10. The crux of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is that the power under section 482 Cr.PC has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever- lasting congeniality in society and resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is adhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery if the statement is fair being free from under pressure. 11. Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that the parties have already compromised the matter and the complainant had already received the entire impugned amount. Therefore, to my mind, there is no impediment in translating the wishes of the parties into reality and to quash the criminal prosecution to set the matter at rest to enable them to live in peace and to enjoy the life and liberty in a dignified manner as guaranteed by and as contemplated in the Constitution of India. 12. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No.254 dated 12.8.2005 (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and all the accused are discharged, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 14.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge