Criminal Misc. No. M- 35497 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 35497 of 2010 Date of decision:- 23.3.2011 Jatinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Ramandeep Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl.A.G. Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Shivcharan Singh Chahal, 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.47 dated 18.5.2010 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Rama Mandi, District Jalandhar (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise. As per FIR, complainant has done the course of IELTS in February 2010 and after knowing the fact through Daljit Singh, husband of her sister-in- law that petitioner is doing the business of sending people abroad, they contacted with him and on his asking handed over Rs.50,000/- to him (petitioner) alongwith her passport. The petitioner told the complainant to enquire after about 15-20 days. After the given time, when complainant tried to contact the petitioner, he did not respond. Neither the money nor the passport to the complainant was returned. In this background, present FIR was Criminal Misc. No. M- 35497 of 2010 -2- registered against the petitioner. During the pendency of trial, compromise has been effected between the parties and as per compromise, complainant does not want to proceed with the trial. In compliance of order dated 03.12.2010, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar has sent a report verifying the contents of the compromise. As per this report, on 14.2.2011 parties appreared through counsel and recorded their statements regarding compromise. Complainant has stated that compromise has been effected with the intervention of the respectables and now she does not want to proceed further against the accused. She alongwith his husband and other persons namely Daljit Singh, Arjan Singh, Ramesh Kumar and Sarabjit Singh have signed the compromise. On the other hand, accused Jatinder Singh also made a statement that compromise has been effected with the complainant and her husband without any pressure, coercion or threat from any quarter with the intervention of the respectables. Accused further made statement on 26.2.2011 that except this case, no other case is registered against him in any police station or file in any court. 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 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- 35497 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- 35497 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.47 dated 18.5.2010 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Rama Mandi, District Jalandhar, is quashed with all consequential proceedings Criminal Misc. No. M- 35497 of 2010 -5- arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. March 23, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE