IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-12400 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 02.09.2009 Surinder Singh and others ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Ms.Harveen Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.P.S.Punia, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 5. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner praying for quashing of FIR No.38 dated 20.05.1999 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 420 read with Section 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Talwara District Hoshiarpur and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise dated 16.4.2007 (Annexure P-3) which has been entered into between the parties. Counsel for the petitioner contends that primarily it is a financial dispute which has emanated due to some misunderstanding wherein the petitioners were unable to pay back the money which was given to them. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the entire amount so due to the respondent-complainant has been paid back to them and on the basis of the said payment, a compromise in writing has been Crl.Misc.No.M-12400 of 2009 -2- entered into between the parties which has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. She submits that the dispute having been amicably resolved on the basis of the compromise as the money which was advanced to the petitioners by the complainant has been returned to them, the FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed. Notice of motion in the present case was issued to the respondents. Affidavits on behalf of respondent No.2 Krishan Lal son of Bir Singh, respondent No.3 Parveen Kumar son of Jagat Ram, respondent No.4 Sukh Raj Singh son of Mangat Ram and respondent No.5 Gurbachan Singh son of Parkash Chand have been filed in Court and were taken on record on 17.08.2009. It has been stated that Bachittar Singh son of Thakar Dass has since expired. However, the compromise had been entered into between the parties wherein Bachittar Singh is also a signatory. This fact finds mentioned in these affidavits. Counsel for the respondent-complainants submits that the complainants have no objection to the quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise which has been entered into between them and the petitioners. Parveen Kumar son of Jagat Ram, Sukh Raj son of Mangat Ram and Gurbachan Singh son of Parkash Chand are present in Court and identified by their counsel. They have accepted the factum of compromise entered into between the parties. They have also accepted the affidavits which they have filed in Court and submit that they do not have any objection to the quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom as they do not want to further pursue the matter against the petitioners in the Crl.Misc.No.M-12400 of 2009 -3- light of the compromise dated 16.4.2007 (Annexure P-3) entered into between them. A special power of attorney on behalf of Krishan Lal son of Bir Singh has been placed on record wherein it is mentioned that because of some personal domestic problem, he is unable to appear before the Court and has appointed Sh.Naresh Kumar Parmar son of Late Ranjit Singh. As per this power of attorney, Sh.Naresh Kumar, has been authorized to make statement on behalf of Krishan Lal with regard to the factum of afore-stated compromise and to further state that he has no objection to the quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings. This power of attorney is taken on record. Naresh Kumar Parmar makes a statement that in the light of the compromise, respondent No.2-Krishan Lal son of Bir Singh, does not have any objection to the quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Smt.Jeeto wife of Sansar Chand, Sarpanch of Village Amroh, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur, who is present in Court has identified the signatures of deceased respondent No.6-Bachittar Singh son of Thakar Dass, on the compromise, Annexure P-3, and has stated that the signatures are that of Bachittar Singh. As per this agreement, he has received the amount due. Counsel for the parties on the basis of the compromise, submit that the dispute having been amicably resolved, it would be in the interest of justice that the FIR in question and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom be quashed. Counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Sewa Dass, Police Station, Talwara, identifies respondents No.3 to 5 who are present in Crl.Misc.No.M-12400 of 2009 -4- Court. He further states that the State also does not have any objection in the light of the compromise having been entered into between the parties and to the quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. In view of the amicable resolution of the dispute which primarily being in the nature of a financial dispute having been settled on payment of all dues which the complainants were required to receive from the petitioners, it would be in the interest of justice that the FIR in questioin and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. A Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, while discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non-compoundable offence(s), has held as under:- “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 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 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 which the cause of justice may throw up Crl.Misc.No.M-12400 of 2009 -5- during the course of a litigation. 29. The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non- compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.” Therefore, in view of the discussion above, since the parties have amicably settled the matter, which is otherwise in the interest of justice and appears to have been effected to promote peace and harmony amongst the parties, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned FIR FIR No.38 dated 20.05.1999 under Sections 420 read with Section 120-B IPC registered at Police Station, Talwara District Hoshiarpur and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. September 02, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE