1 995.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.995 OF 2010 Nari Motiram Hira ...Petitioner Versus Avinash Balkrishnan & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.B.D.Joshi i/b Jitendra M.Pathare for Petitioner. Mr.V.V.Khemka i/b SRS Legal for Respondent No.1. Mr.P.A.Pol, P.P. for State. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED:- FEBRUARY 3, 2011. P.C. 1. This Petition is filed for quashing of F.I.R. No.50/2010 registered on 6th February, 2010 at Amboli Police Station, Andheri for offence punishable under Sections 452, 427, 324, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (`I.P.C.’). Except offence under Sections 452 and 324 of I.P.C., the other offences are compoundable offences. The petitioner-accused and respondent No.1-complainant have amicably resolved their dispute. In the light of that settlement, it would be open to them to get the offences under Sections 427, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. compounded. However, that would not be the end of the matter, as the petitioner will have to still face the 2 995.10 prosecution under Sections 452 and 324 of I.P.C. which are non- compoundable offences. The petitioner has, therefore, chosen the forum of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (`Cr.P.C.’) r/w Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of F.I.R. as a whole. The respondent No.1 complainant submits that the dispute arose on account of the strained relations at the relevant time between the petitioner and the respondent no.1. The dispute was purely a personal one between them and arose in connection with the business activities. It does not involve public policy. As a result, they have arrived at amicable settlement resolving all their contentious issues. 2. The question is: whether the relief of quashing of F.I.R. in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised merely because the parties have amicably resolved their dispute, especially when the offence is a non-compoundable offence. This aspect has been answered by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 2008 SC 1969. In paragraph No.5, the Apex Court observed thus : “5. It is on the basis of this compromise that the application was filed in the High Court for quashing of proceedings which has been dismissed by the 3 995.10 impugned order. We notice from a reading of the FIR and the other documents on record that the dispute was purely a personal one between two contesting parties and that it arose out of extensive business dealings between them and that there was absolutely no public policy involved in the nature of the allegations made against the accused. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise and also in the light of the fact that the complainant has, on 11th January 2004, passed away and the possibility of a conviction being recorded has thus to be ruled out. We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and benefit of the technicalities of the law. We see from the impugned order that the learned Judge has confused a compounding of an offence with the quashing of proceedings. The outer limit of Rs. 250/- which has led to the dismissal of the application is an irrelevant factor in the later case. We accordingly allow the appeal and in the peculiar facts of the case, direct that FIR No. 155 dated 17th November 2001 P.S. Kotwali, Amritsar and all proceedings connected therewith shall be deemed to be quashed.” (emphasis supplied) 3. Our attention is rightly invited by the Counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.1 to the decision of the five-Judges Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in 2007(4) CTC 769 in the case of Kulwinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. The Five-Judge Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court pointedly dealt with the issue that arises for our consideration as can be discerned from the question framed in Paragraph No.11 of the reported decision. The same reads thus : “1. Whether the High Court has the prower under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings or allow the compounding of the offences 4 995.10 in the event of the parties entering into a compromise in the cases which have been specified as non-compoundable offences and in particular, in view of the provisions of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C.?” 4. The said question has been answered in the affirmative and it is held that there can never be any hard and fast category which can be prescribed to enable the Court to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.. The only principle that can be laid down is the one which has been incorporated in the Section itself i.e. “to prevent abuse of the process of any Court” or “to secure the ends of justice”. It is held that the settlement or compromise must satisfy the conscience of the Court. It must be just and fair besides being free from undue pressure. The Court must examine the cases of weaker and vulnerable victims with necessary caution, if relief of quashing is on account of settlement. The High Court then went on to observe as follows : “39. 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 amity 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. 40. The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to 5 995.10 matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.” 5. As aforesaid, in the present case, the dispute arose essentially because of the strained relations between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 at the relevant time. The petitioner, out of frustration, reacted in the manner which resulted in registration of offence in question. The dispute was purely personal one between them and arose in connection with the business activities. It does not involve public policy. The settlement is without any undue pressure on the respondent No.1. Now that the parties have arrived at amicable settlement and resolved all their contentious issues, we have no difficulty in acceding to the request of the petitioner, rather joint request of the petitioner and the respondent No.1, to quash the F.I.R. to secure the ends of justice. 6. The learned A.P.P., however, has invited our attention to the recent order of the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. dated 23rd November, 2010 in SLP (Cri.) No.8989/2010. In this order, however, the Two-Judge Bench of the Apex Court has doubted the correctness of the view taken in earlier decisions of the Apex Court in the 6 995.10 case of B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana - (2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. – (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma vs. State & Ors. - (2008) 16 SCC 1, and has instead referred the matter to larger Bench to consider the question as to whether the Court can exercise its power of quashing the F.I.R. in respect of offence which is a non-compoundable offence, merely because the parties have later on amicably resolved their dispute. However, this Court will have to decide the matter on the basis of the binding precedent of the Apex Court. With due respect to the learned A.P.P., the decision of the Apex Court brought to our notice in the case of Gian Singh (supra) is an order raising doubt about the correctness of the approach or the view taken in the earlier decision of the Apex Court. It is essentially an order making reference for reconsideration of the opinion of the co-ordinate benches of the Apex Court on the subject to a larger Bench. Until the decisions of the Apex Court which are in force as of now are to be overruled, this Court would be obliged to follow the same as binding precedents. 7. In view of the above, as aforesaid, we accede to the joint request of the petitioner and respondent No.1 to allow them to compound the offences punishable under Sections 427, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. and also accept their 7 995.10 request to quash the entire F.I.R. bearing No.50/2010 registered with Amboli Police Station, Andheri dated 6th February, 2010 which incidentally refer to Sections 452 and 324 of the I.P.C. which are non-compoundable offences in view of the arrangement arrived at between the petitioner and respondent No.1, in the fact situation of the present case, to secure the ends of justice. 8. Petition allowed on the above terms. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)