Criminal Misc. No. M-1866 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-1866 of 2011 Date of decision:- 29.3.2011 Kunti Devi and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG Haryana for respondent No.1-State assisted by Inspector Mahabir Sindhu. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.26 dated 17.9.2009 under Sections 419,420,467,468,471 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station State Vigilance Bureau, Sub Center, Jhajjar, District Rohtak (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise. As per FIR, Smt. Surti Devi daughter of Bodhan son of Teja Ram was having 1/12th share of land comprised in Khewat No.142 measuring 53 Kanals 2 Marlas situated in village Silana, District Jhajjar, who sold her 1/3rd share i.e. 17 Kanals 14 Marlas to Kunti Devi wife of Basant Singh son of Ram Chander resident of Silana for an amount of Rs.15,50,000/- through sale deed No.960 dated 16.5.2007. Jasbir son of Kishan Lal resident of Gokalgarh of this sale deed had already died on 17.6.1998 but Basant Singh, Dilbagh Singh Lambardar, Dharambir Singh, Satbir @ Satish and Dayal went to Jhajjar Tehsil in Criminal Misc. No. M-1866 of 2011 -2- order to execute the sale deed and in they in connivance with each other impersonated Dayal son of Bhagwan resident of Gokalgarh, District Rewari as deceased Jasbir Singh and got him photographed in front of the computer and Dilbagh Singh and Dharambir fradulently verified him before the Tehsildar. In this way all the accused in connivance with each other committed an offence. In this background, the FIR was registered. Counsel for the State on instructions from Inspector Mahavir Sindhu informs the Court that the investigations are still going on and challan has not been presented so far. Counsel for the petitioner states that a compromise has been effected between the parties on 17.12.2008. Respondent No.2-complainant Rameshwari stated that she has entered into compromise with accused. As per compromise she has been given back the piece of land. In her affidavit dated 17.12.2008 she has stated that she has received back her 1/72 share out of 53 Kanals 2 Marlas which comes to 15 Marlas from Smt. Kunti Devi through registered sale deed. She has compromised the matter with mutual consent and does not want to initiate any criminal proceedings against Kunti Devi. On the basis of this petition, the trial Court was directed to send a report vide order dated 20.1.2011 with regard to the validity of compromise. Respondent No.2-complainant Rameshwari wife of Jasvir resident of village Silana at present Gokal Garh, Tehsil and District Riwari has recorded her statement that she has compromised the matter and has received the land back from Kunti Devi and now she has not interested to pursue the criminal litigation against here. She has also made statement that she does not want to pursue the criminal proceedings against Basant son of Ram Chander, Dilbag Singh son of Umed Singh and Dharamvir Singh son of Kishan Chand. Joint statement of Criminal Misc. No. M-1866 of 2011 -3- Kunti Devi wife of Basant, Basant, Dilbag and Dharambir Singh also recorded on 15.2.2011 to the effect that they have compromised the matter as per Annexure P-3 and there is no dispute remains. After going through the facts of the case it transpires that Kunti Devi had purchased the land from 13 persons and a dispute arose qua land only by Jasbir husband of Rameshwari Devi. During pendency of investigation, compromise has been effected, whereby Kunti Devi had given back the piece of land measuring 12 Marlas to Rameshwari. After getting the said piece of land Rameshwari Devi is satisfied and now she does not want to pursue any criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court has dealt with the matters where the offence is non-compoubdable and has come to the conclusion that where the compromise has been effected, it will be futile exercise to get the complainant and accused to pursue criminal prosecution. In the present case, the dispute is of 2009, even the challan has not been presented till date and the parties have already entered into compromise. No useful purpose will be served by keeping the proceedings pending in this case. 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 :- Criminal Misc. No. M-1866 of 2011 -4- “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-1866 of 2011 -5- 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.26 dated 17.9.2009 under Sections 419,420,467,468,471 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station State Vigilance Bureau, Sub Center, Jhajjar, District Rohtak, is Criminal Misc. No. M-1866 of 2011 -6- quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua all the petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. March 29, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE