Criminal Misc. No. M- 19679 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 19679 of 2010 Date of decision:-05.04.2011 Parkash Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Paramjit S. Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl.A.G. Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Surinder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 149 of 29.5.2009 under Section 420 IPC, registered at Police Station City, Kapurthala, District Kapurthala on the basis of compromise. As per FIR, husband of complainant namely Atam Singh had got a sale deed of 0-2 Marla from Mangat Ram and Parkash Ram sons of Buta Ram, residents of Alamgir vide Wasika No.2330 dated 28.7.1989 before Sub Registrar, Kapurthala for which the then Patwari Vijay Kumar had given farad of acceptance dated 31.7.1991 and thereafter Mangat Ram and Parkash Ram sons of Buta Ram had sold that area second time to Devinder Singh son of Bakhtawar Singh vide Wasika No.4621 dated 09.2.2005 before Sub Registrar, Kapurthala. Thereafter, inquiries were conducted by the police and Administrative Officers against the petitioners and found the petitioner at fault. In this background, present FIR Criminal Misc. No. M- 19679 of 2010 -2- was registered. During the pending proceedings, compromise has been effected between the parties. As per order dated 08.9.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Lok Adalat [Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.)], Kapurthala, Parkash Ram (petitioner) and Devender Singh made statements admitting the claim of respondent No.2 as correct and they have stated that they have no objection if the suit of Hakam Singh is decreed. The sale deed dated 09.2.2005 executed in favour of Devender Singh by Parkash Ram was ordered to be set aside whereas the sale deed dated 28.7.1989 executed by Parkash Ram in favour of Hakam Singh, husband of respondent No.2-Surjit Kaur remain intact. Hakam Singh was declared to be owner in possession of the suit land and Parkash Ram and Devender Singh were restrained from interfering in his possession forcibly and illegally and the Award was passed in favour of Hakam Singh. Respondent No.2- complainant today appeared in the Court and identified by his counsel. Affidavit of respondent No.2-complainant has been placed on record and as per the affidavit, due to intervention of respectable of the village, complainant has compromised the matter with the accused and she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed qua petitioner. 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 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 :- Criminal Misc. No. M- 19679 of 2010 -3- “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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 19679 of 2010 -4- 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 Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), FIR No. 149 of 29.5.2009 under Section 420 IPC, registered at Police Station City, Kapurthala, District Kapurthala, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising Criminal Misc. No. M- 19679 of 2010 -5- therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. April 05, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE