Crl. Misc.No. M-35890 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc.No. M-35890 of 2010 Date of decision : 06.04.2011 Shubeg Singh ......Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Guninder Singh Brar, AAG, Punjab for respondent No. 1-State Mr. D.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant-respondent No. 2 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.78 dated 16.10.2010 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 406/420 of IPC, registered at Police Station Kulgarhi, District Ferozepur and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). Brief facts of the case are that the complainant gave Rs. 1,30,000/- to the petitioner who had given him an assurance to get the job of driver. The complainant further told to Roop Singh Ex-Service man that half money he will pay in advance and remaining half he will pay after getting service. He along with Roop Singh Fauji given Rs.65,000/- in July, 2008 to the petitioner. The petitioner further told to the complainant that he will give orders of pucca service in October 2008 and further told the Crl. Misc.No. M-35890 of 2010 -2- complainant to arrange the remaining amount. But petitioner has not given orders of serve till now nor has returned the money. He visited several times along with respectable persons to the petitioner and told him that if he cannot provide service to the complainant then return the money. But no money was returned to him. In the above background, F.I.R was registered against the petitioner. However, during the pendency of investigation, the parties have entered into compromise with the intervention of Panchayat and respectable persons. The compromise deed dated 24.11.2010 is Annexure P2. As per the compromise (Annexure P2),the complainant had received Rs. 65,000/- from the petitioner and now he does not want further action in this case. In compliance of order dated 07.12.2010, report from Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur has been received. As per this report, complainant and petitioner along with Sher Singh Sarpanch and Vijay Kumar Gill, MC Ferozepur had appeared before the Court and made their statements with regard to the compromise. As per the statements of complainant and petitioner, the matter has been compromised with the intervention of Panchayat and respectables. Sher Singh and Vijay Kumar Gill also got their statement recorded they have got the dispute between complainant and petitioner which have now been compromised. In view of the statements of the complainant and petitioner, the compromise is held to be valid and 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 Crl. Misc.No. M-35890 of 2010 -3- 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 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 Crl. Misc.No. M-35890 of 2010 -4- 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 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 Crl. Misc.No. M-35890 of 2010 -5- 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.” In the present case, Lakhvinder Singh (deceased) was doing job with petitioner since 20.05.2009 and was paid Rs.30,000/- per annum by him. He was a drug addict and was not doing his work efficiently. Complainant has compromised the matter with the petitioner and has agreed to do the work for the remaining amount which was due on his deceased son. In view of the above compromise, it appears that complainant has no grudge against the petitioner. The mere fact that the complainant has agreed to work for the petitioner in lieu of the salary received by his son goes to show that complainant has entered into compromise without any pressure and therefore, compromise is held to be genuine. 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.78 dated 16.10.2010 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 406/420 of IPC, registered at Police Station Kulgarhi, District Ferozepur is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE April 06, 2011 G.Arora