Criminal Misc. No. M-18146 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-18146 of 2011 Date of decision:- 05.7.2011 Devinder Sharma and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Deepinder Brar, Advocate for respondent No.2-complainant. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The petitioners have sought quashing of FIR No.70 dated 15.6.2010 under Sections 384,388,182 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Mehatpur, District Jalandhar on the basis of compromise. The FIR was registered on the complaint of Harbhajan Singh Chopra. The allegation against the accused Davinder Sharma is that he used to threat and took the cheques from the complainant at many times on gun point. On 18.6.2008 Davinder Sharma accompanied his wife Seema Sharma alongwith anti-social elements armed with firearm abducted the complainant and his wife and got signatures on certain typed papers at gun point showing 50% share in the hotel of complainant. Thereafter, complainant complained to the Delhi Police Crime Branch and an FIR No.12 dated 22.10.2008 under Sections 384,420,467,468,471,477,506 and 120-B IPC was registered at Police Station Criminal Misc. No. M-18146 of 2011 -2- Crime Branch, Sunlight Colony, New Delhi. Davinder Sharma and his group threatened him and put him and his wife in fear and pressurize him further to surrender his possession of Claremont hotel to him and got a case FIR No.70 dated 15.1.2010 under Sections 420,406 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Indira Puram, District Ghaziabad (UP). Thereafter petitioner Davinder has got another FIR No.43 dated 19.2.2010 under Sections 406,420,467,468 and 471 IPC at Police Station Gal Shashir, District Moradabad (UP). The complainant was released on bail on 19.3.2010. Thereafter Davinder Sharma, his wife Seema Sharma and his criminal gang under deep rooted conspiracy had concocted a false story in order to usurp the property of complainant and to get undue advantage in business and in order to cause financial loss to him and dishonestly and fraudulently in order to usurp the property of hotel got a false case FIR No.21 dated 10.3.2010 under Section 307 read with Section 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Mehatpur, District Jalandhar against the complainant and his son Parminder. During investigation the same was found false and was cancelled. In this background the FIR was registered. Counsel for the State on instructions from SI Sulakhan Singh informs the Court that the matter has been compromised between the parties. Respondent No.2-complainant is present in the Court and identified by his counsel. Affidavit has been filed by respondent No.2 to the effect that compromise has been effected between the parties on account of their free will and consent and without any fraud, coercion or pressure. He has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-18146 of 2011 -3- 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 :- “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 Criminal Misc. No. M-18146 of 2011 -4- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-18146 of 2011 -5- 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.70 dated 15.6.2010 under Sections 384,388,182 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Mehatpur, District Jalandhar, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. 05.7.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE