Criminal Misc. No. M-3511 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-3511 of 2011 Date of decision:- 26.4.2011 Ashish Abrol and another ...Petitioners Versus State of U.T. Chandigarh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Ms. Sumanjit Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Ashima Mor, APP for U.T. Chandigarh. Mr. Sharan Sethi, 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.11 dated 12.1.2011 under Sections 420,464,467,471,474 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Sector-3, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise. As per FIR, accused persons wanted to purchase the house of complainant. On 5.6.2010 accused persons came to the house of complainant at Sector 8 and orally agreed to purchase the said house for rupees ten crores twenty two lacs for Gurmeet Singh Wadalia. Petitioners given Rs.11,00,000/- cash one time to complainant and Rs.20,00,000/- through pay order of IDBI Bank, Lajpat Nagar New Delhi bearing No.003021 dated 23.7.2010. Thereafter on 2.8.2010 petitioners gave cheque of rupees two crores, which on presentation was bounced with the remarks “insufficient funds”. Complainant tried to contact Criminal Misc. No. M-3511 of 2011 -2- the petitioners regarding this matter but they never responded. Thereafter, in November 2010 it came to the notice of complainant through registered post from Shri G.S. Sandhu, Advocate that the petitioners have filed a court case against him by making a forged agreement. The accused persons in conspiracy with each other and the witness to the documents namely Javed Akhtar son of Abdul Khalik Bachha, resident of E-140, Jalpur Extension, New Delhi and Hitesh Narula son of P.L. Narula, 2016, Outram Lane-2, New Delhi with an intention to cheat and deprive the property of complainant deceitfully, wrongfully prepared and fabricated the forged documents. IN this background, the FIR in question was registered against the accused. During the pendency of investigation, compromise has been effected between the parties (Annexure P-2) dated 27.1.2011. As per compromise the dispute between the parties has been settled as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the compromise deed. As per compromise, petitioner Ashish Abrol has already withdrawn the civil suit, which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh against respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has further agreed for quashing of FIR in question, which was registered at Police Station Sector-3, Chandigarh against the petitioners. As per compromise, they have agreed to withdraw all the complaints made by them in any police station or in any Court against each other. The compromise has been effected without any coercion or pressure of any kind and the parties have agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the compromise. Affidavit of complainant Chander Parkash Sawhney (Annexure P-3) has been filed in which he has stated that the compromise has been effected and petitioner Ashish Abrol has withdrawn the civil suit pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh. In view of the fact that the civil suit has been withdrawn, the complainant has no objection for quashing of FIR in question qua petitioners. Criminal Misc. No. M-3511 of 2011 -3- In compliance of order dated 3.2.2011, the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh has sent a report verifying the contents of the compromise. As per this report, on 23.4.2011 complainant appeared before the trial Court and recorded his statement to the effect that the matter has been compromised with the petitioners vide compromise deed signed on 27.1.2011 which is Ex.C-1 and the conditions of compromise have been fulfilled and now no money or anything else is to be paid or to be handed over to the complainant by the said accused persons and he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed which was registered against the petitioners. The dispute in this case was with regard to some property, which has now been amicably settled. After recording the statements of the parties, the compromise is held to be 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-3511 of 2011 -4- 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 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. Criminal Misc. No. M-3511 of 2011 -5- 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.11 dated 12.1.2011 under Sections 420,464,467,471,474 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Sector-3, Chandigarh, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. April 26, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE