Crl. Misc. No. M-1163 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-1163 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 21.3.2011 Om Parkash & others .......... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present : Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 &3. **** RITU BAHRI, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of (i) FIR No. 62 dated 6.6.2002 under Sections 468, 467, 471 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Julka, District Patiala (Annexure A-1), (ii) FIR No. 278 dated 28.9.2004 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar (Annexure P-2), and (ii) FIR No. 354 dated 22.12.2004 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC registered at Police Station Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar (Annexure P-3) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on Crl. Misc. No. M-1163 of 2011 -2- the basis of compromise. As per the allegations levelled against the petitioners, the complainant alleges that petitioner No.1 forged a General Power of Attorney, which was claimed to have been executed by respondents No.2 & 3 and on the basis of the aforesaid Power of Attorney petitioner No.1 executed two sale deeds and therefore on the basis of the alleged forged power of attorney, and the sale deeds thereafter three different FIRs were registered against the petitioners. In Criminal Misc. No. 47052-M of 2005, a direction had been given by this Court vide order dated 10.5.2006, that the investigation of all the abovesaid FIRs to be conducted by the same Investigating Officer and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dera Bassi was directed to conduct investigation of all the three abovesaid FIRs. Respondents No. 2 & 3 challenged the sale deeds by filing a suit for declaration in the civil Court at Rajpura and two separate suits were filed titled as Neeraj Garg Vs. Jaswinder Singh and Kamaldeep Vs. Kulwinder Singh and others. Both the suits were decreed vide judgment and decree dated 27.9.2006, whereby it was held that sale deeds are illegal, unlawful, inoperative and are result of fraud and mis-representation on the basis of false, forged and fabricated power of Attorney prepared at Dera Bassi and are not binding on the complainant i.e. respondents No. 2 & 3. Similarly, two separate suits were also filed in Civil Courts at Haridawar by respondents No.2 & 3, which were also decreed in their favour and against the petitioners in the same terms as decided Crl. Misc. No. M-1163 of 2011 -3- above vide judgment and decree dated 31.10.2003. Ultimately, with the intervention of the relatives, friends and other respectable persons a compromise was got effected between the petitioners and respondents No. 2 & 3 to the effect that since the sale deeds have been annulled and the FIRs have been lodged since the year 2003-04 and the petitioners have felt sorry for their act and conduct and therefore, respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have also condoned their act and have decided not to pursue the matter further. A compromise deed was reduced into writing in the presence of parties on 12.11.2010. Compromise deed is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-5. In compliance of the order dated 18.1.2011, report from the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dera Bassi has been received. As per the report, the parties appeared in the Court on 1.3.2011 and their statements were recorded. From the contents of the FIR it transpires that accused Om Parkash, Ashok Kumar, Ajmer Singh, Manjinder Singh alias Manvinder Singh, Kulwinder Singh and Sohan Lal were petitioners before this Court and not the accused Narinder Singh, Manoj Kumar and Chahan Singh. These three accused did not effect any compromise with the complainants /victims, in these FIRs. AS far as, petitioners Jaswinder Singh and Tejinder Singh are concerned, though they were petitioners before this Court, but they were not named as accused, but find mention in the body of FIR No. 354 dated 22.12.2004. In FIR No. 278 dated 28.9.2004 they were neither named as accused nor they find mention in the body of this FIR. In Crl. Misc. No. M-1163 of 2011 -4- FIR No. 62 dated 1.4.2002 they were neither named as accused nor find mention in the body of the said FIR. The compromise was single compromise in all the three FIRs. Cumulatively, the offences in all the FIRs are under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. As per the status report, the offences are non- compoundable except 419 & 420 IPC. After going through the facts of the case, it transpires that there was long back litigation between the parties. FIRs were registered in the year 2002 to 2004 and after the civil Court decrees the parties have compromised the matter. Since the matter was civil in nature, this Court is of the view that the compromise has been effected in a very just and fair manner and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending. 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 :- “The finest hour of justice arrived propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense Crl. Misc. No. M-1163 of 2011 -5- 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-1163 of 2011 -6- 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 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) R.C.R. (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 disputes where question involved is of purely personal nature and no public policy is involved – Court should ordinarily accept the compromise. Crl. Misc. No. M-1163 of 2011 -7- 3. Keeping the matter alive with no possibility of conviction is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they a re, cannot afford.” This Court in the case of Parambir Singh Gill Vs. Malkiat Kaur 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 256, has been pleased to lay down as under :- “Criminal Procedure Code, Section 320- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sections 3 and 4- Non Compoundable offence- of the seven accused, complainant entering into compromise with one accused- Proceedings qua one accused only quashed by High Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.” Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (supra), Parambir Singh Gill Vs. Malkiat Kaur (supra) and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), (i) FIR No. 62 dated 6.6.2002 under Sections 468, 467, 471 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Julka, District Patiala (Annexure A-1), (ii) FIR No. 278 dated 28.9.2004 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar (Annexure P-2), and (ii) FIR No. 354 dated 22.12.2004 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC registered at Police Station Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar (Annexure P-3) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on Crl. Misc. No. M-1163 of 2011 -8- the basis of compromise is quashed qua petitioners. The petitions stand disposed of. 21.3.2011 (RITU BAHRI) 'sp' JUDGE