Criminal Misc. No. M- 8743 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 8743 of 2011 Date of decision:-30.3.2011 Sadhu Ram Saida ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Vineet Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl.A.G. Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Tushant Deep Garg, Advocate for respondent No.2-complainant. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 4 dated 23.1.2011, under Sections 420,467,468,471 IPC, registered at Police Station Phul, Bathinda (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). As per FIR, the land bearing Khewat No.600, Khatauni No.1072/1073 falling in Khasra No.729/1 was measuring around 1600 sq. yards was jointly owned by petitioner-Sadhu Ram Shaida, Nathu Ram and Suraj Bhan as per revenue record. On 22.5.1981 Nathu Ram died and after his death, his 1/3rd share came to be mutated in the name of his two sons namely Amit Gupta and Vikas Gupta (complainant). Thereafter Suraj Bhan, owner of 1/3rd share also transferred his share to Amit Gupta and Vikas Gupta sons of Nathu Ram. In this way, Amit Gupta and Vikas Gupta becomes owners of 2/3rd share. Petitioner- Criminal Misc. No. M- 8743 of 2011 -2- Sadhu Ram Shaida sold his ownership in the land in favour of Khushi Ram for an amount of Rs.48,000/-. The said sale deed was for 1 Kanal 1 Marla. The said sale deed was registered on 5.1.1987. Now, land measuring 1 Kanal 1 Marla bearing Khasra No.729/1 was entered in favour of Khushi Ram whereas the mutation of the remaining land measuring 1 Kanal 7 Marla falling in Khasra No.729/2 was in the name of Amit Gupta and Vikas Gupta. When complainant approached to the Revenue Authorities, then as per latest jamabandi issued on 19.4.2010, it was transpired that some other persons are in possession of the land owned by complainant. On inquiry, the said persons provided them a copy of sale deed dated 10.3.1989, which show that the said deed got executed by petitioner-Shadhu Ram Shaida as General Power of Attorney of Satya Devi wife of late Sh. Nathu Ram and the alleged power of attorney was dated 07.12.1987 registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Rampura Phul by Smt. Satya Devi in favour of Sadhu Ram Shaida. As per office of the Registrar, Bathinda vide communication dated 17.6.2010, while providing copy of the sale deed dated 10.3.1989 under Right to Information Act, it was also certified that there is no power of attorney bearing No.509 dated 07.12.1987 registered with that Office or Sub Registrar. In this background, the present FIR was got registered against the petitioner. During pendency of investigation, the parties have clear the misunderstanding and reached at compromise vide Annexure P-2 dated 18.2.2011. There was a minor dispute with regard to the property, which has now been resolved. On notice, respondent No.2 has tendered his affidavit. He is present in Court and duly identified by his counsel. As per the affidavit, the parties have entered into compromise (Annexure P-2) and the dispute has been settled and now he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed qua petitioner. Criminal Misc. No. M- 8743 of 2011 -3- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 8743 of 2011 -4- 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 question involved is of purely personal nature and no public policy is involved – Court should ordinarily accept the compromise. Criminal Misc. No. M- 8743 of 2011 -5- 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. 4 dated 23.1.2011, under Sections 420,467,468,471 IPC, registered at Police Station Phul, Bathinda, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. March 30, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE