Crl. Misc. No. M-2835 of 2011 (O&M) -1- -IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-2835 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 07.04.2011 Ranjan Kumar and another ......Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioners. Sh. Kshitij Sharma, A.A.G., Haryan for respondent No. 1-State Mr. Karan Pathak, 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.191 dated 09.11.2008(Annexure P-1) under Sections 420/379 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 55/56, Gurgaon along with Challan (Annexure P2) and all the subsequent proceeding with charge-sheet, Annexure P3, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-4). Before adverting in to the merits of the case, it would first be necessary to point out the contents of the F.I.R. As per the F.I.R, a cheque no. 7225581 has been presented on 05.11.2008 for a sum of Rs. 7,63,987/- by the name of Mr. Shivaji Ray from HDFC Bank Sector 22, Gurgaon. The allegation was that it was a clear case of fraud and cheating. Ranjan Kumar, Accountant has left the job without any notice for the last two months and this cheque book bearing no. 7225581 was in his custody which may have Crl. Misc. No. M-2835 of 2011 (O&M) -2- been misused by him. Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Accountant was sitting and operating in the Scottish High School catering office, Sector 57, Gurgaon. In the above background, F.I.R was registered against the petitioners. However, during the pendency of the investigation, the matter has been amicably settled between the complainant and the accused. The police after investigation has filed challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C (Annexure P2). Vide order dated 20.07.2010, the learned trial Court has framed charges against the accused under Sections 379, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B, IPC (Annexure P3). During the pendency of trial. parties have arrived at a compromise with the intervention of common friends and dispute stands resolved now. As per the compromise/affidavit (Annexure P4), matter has been compromised and now complainant does not want to pursue the case against the petitioners and has also no objection if the F.I.R got registered by him is quashed or cancelled. It has further been stated that both the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise and there is no grouse left between them. Counsel for respondent No. 2 appeared in the Court and filed an affidavit of the complainant to the effect that the accused have now apologized for their misddeds and with the efforts of respectable and other known persons of both the sides, a compromise has taken place between him and the accused. He does not want to further prosecute them. Respondent No. 2 has further no objection, if the above said F.I.R is cancelled or quashed. So, it appears that the compromise is voluntarily and without any pressure. Copy of compromise 24.01.2011 is annexed as Crl. Misc. No. M-2835 of 2011 (O&M) -3- Annexure P-4. As per the affidavit filed by respondent No. 2, the matter has been compromised and bears the signatures of the deponent and the same was reduced into writing with the consent of the complainant without any compulsion etc. The affidavit is taken on record as Annexure A-1. 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-2835 of 2011 (O&M) -4- 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-2835 of 2011 (O&M) -5- 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.191 dated 09.11.2008(Annexure P-1) under Sections 420/379 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 55/56, Gurgaon is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE April 07, 2011 G.Arora