Criminal Misc. No. M-3073 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-3073 of 2010 Date of decision:- 09.03.2011 Gurcharan Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder S.Brar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. I.P.S. Kohli, Advocate for respondent No.2. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 61 dated 05.3.2005 under Sections 419,420,465,467,468,471,474 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Samana, District Patiala on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-1). As per allegations in the FIR, the complainant is owner in possession of the agricultural land in Village Bijalpur, Police Station Samana, District Patiala. Her brother-in-law Gurcharan Singh does not own any land in the village. He by impersonating some other lady in her place, he got attested a mortgage deed from Tehsil office Samana and he got a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from Canara Bank Chhoti Barandari Patiala and purchased a tractor from Sandhu Tractors, Samana District Patiala and has pledged her 21 Kanals 17 Marlas of land. In this background the FIR was registered by the complainant against the Criminal Misc. No. M-3073 of 2010 -2- petitioners. In the reply, filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, it has been stated that a challan was presented in the Court on 25.5.2005, charges were framed on 02.7.2005 and the case was fixed for evidence of prosecution on 18.3.2010. All the witnesses have been examined and the matter was fixed for 12.3.2011. During pendency of this trial, a compromise has been effected between the parties on 25.1.2010. As per compromise deed, the matter has been compromised. Respondent No.2-Sinder Kaur appeared through counsel and filed her affidavit admitting the factum of compromise and stating that the matter has been compromised with the petitioners and now he is having no objection if the FIR in question with consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed qua petitioners. Respondent No.2-complainant, who is present in the Court, has identified by her counsel. The compromise is voluntarily and without any pressure. As per compromise (Annexure P-1), both the parties have settled the dispute amicably as per the conditions recorded in the compromise. Counsel for the respondent does not dispute the genuineness of the compromise (Annexure P-1) annexed with the petition. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-3073 of 2010 -3- 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 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-3073 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. 61 dated 05.3.2005 under Sections 419,420,465,467,468,471,474 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Samana, District Patiala, is quashed with all Criminal Misc. No. M-3073 of 2010 -5- consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. March 09, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE