Crl. Misc. No. M-42939 of 2007 and other connected case 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision : August 17, 2009 Crl. Misc. No. M-42939 of 2007 Manoj Jindal son of Sh. Ramesh Jindal, Jindal Brothers, Duggal Complex, Pindi Street, Ludhiana .... Petitioner Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others .... Respondents Crl. Misc. No. M-52363 of 2007 Kamal Jindal son of Sh. Ramesh Jindal,c/o Laxmi Medicos, Hospital Bazar, Bathinda .... Petitioner Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present : Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate, for the petitioner (Crl. Misc. No. M-42939 of 2007) Mr. Bipan Ghai, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate, for the petitioner (Crl. Misc. No. M-52363 of 2007) Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, Additional A.P. for U.T. Chandigarh-respondent No. 1. Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab, for respondent No. 3. * * * AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) By this order I propose to dispose of two petitions i.e. Crl. Crl. Misc. No. M-42939 of 2007 and other connected case 2 Misc. No. M-42939 of 2007 titled as Manoj Jindal son of Sh. Ramesh Jindal, Jindal Brothers, Duggal Complex, Pindi Street, Ludhiana vs.Union Territory, Chandigarh and others and Crl. Misc. No. M-52363 of 2007 titled as Kamal Jindal son of Sh. Ramesh Jindal,c/o Laxmi Medicos, Hospital Bazar, Bathinda vs.Union Territory, Chandigarh and others, which has been preferred by co-accused and one FIR being FIR No. 196 dated 17.08.2005, registered at Police Station Economic Wing, Sector-26, Chandigarh under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the present FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint of respondent No. 2. He contends that it was primarily a misunderstanding between the parties with regard to some documentation and non-production of 'C' Form, which was not valid. The dispute having been amicably sorted out in view of the submission of the `C' Form subsequently a compromise has been entered into between the parties, copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure P-2 dated 20.09.2006. Counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the statement, which has been given by the complainant in a Civil Suit preferred by the complainant against the present petitioner for recovery of the amount, which liability they have to incur because of the misunderstanding, which has occurred between the parties. The said statement is appended as Annexure P-3, which is contained in the order dated 20.09.2006. Counsel for the petitioner, on this basis, prays for quashing of the FIR as the dispute, which was primarily monetary in nature, having been resolved between the parties, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding with the same. Upon notice having been issued, Union Territory, Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-42939 of 2007 and other connected case 3 had put in appearance and filed an affidavit wherein it has been stated that proper 'C' Forms have been submitted, however, the liability, if any, is with regard to the State of Punjab and accordingly, State of Punjab was impleaded as a party in the present petition. On the last date of hearing i.e. 12.08.2009, counsel for the petitioner had handed over two bank guarantees worth Rs. 32,40,000/-, which was the amount of liability as assessed by the State of Punjab. Counsel for the State, on the last date of hearing, had sought time to verify the veracity of the said bank guarantees. Counsel for the State, on instructions from Sh. Sohan Singh, Excise and Taxation Officer, Ludhiana-3, states that two bank guarantees, which have been furnished by the petitioner, have been found to be liquid and, therefore, in the light of the said bank guarantees and the post-dated cheques, which have been earlier given by the Firm, which run up to year 2014, the State of Punjab also does not have any objection to the quashing of the FIR in question. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. In the light of the compromise, which has been entered into between the parties and the Union Territory, Chandigarh and State of Punjab, who are also interested parties, having no objection now to the quashing of the FIR, the present petitions deserve to be allowed. Reliance can be made upon the Larger Bench Judgment of this Court in the case Kulvinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and Crl. Misc. No. M-42939 of 2007 and other connected case 4 another 2007(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1052, while discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise, by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non-compoundable offences, 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-42939 of 2007 and other connected case 5 have amicably settled the matter, which is otherwise in the interest of justice, the instant petitions are allowed. Consequently, FIR No. 196 dated 17.08.2005, registered at Police Station Economic Wing, Sector-26, Chandigarh under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. August 17, 2009 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) pj JUDGE Crl. Misc. No. M-42939 of 2007 and other connected case 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-52363 of 2007 Date of Decision : August 17, 2009 Kamal Jindal son of Sh. Ramesh Jindal,c/o Laxmi Medicos, Hospital Bazar, Bathinda .... Petitioner Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present : Mr. Bipan Ghai, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, Additional A.P. for U.T. Chandigarh-respondent No. 1. Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab, for respondent No. 3. * * * AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) For order see Crl. Misc. No. M-42939 of 2007 titled as Manoj Jindal son of Sh. Ramesh Jindal, Jindal Brothers, Duggal Complex, Pindi Street, Ludhiana vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others. August 17, 2009 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) pj JUDGE