Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdev Singh vs State Of Punjab & Others on 24 February, 2011
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
CRM No. M-31120 of 2009
-1-
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No. M-31120 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 24.2.2011
Sukhdev Singh
.......... petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & others
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present : Mr. Gurmeet Singh Saini, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate
for respondent Nos.2 & 3.
****
RITU BAHRI, J. (ORAL)
Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 124 dated 10.7.2009 under Section 420 IPC registered at Police Station Khanna and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.
In compliance of the order dated 1.10.2010 passed by this Court, a report has been received from learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna. As per the report, statement of complainants Mohan Singh and Kuldeep Singh on one hand and that of accused Sukhdev Singh on the other hand on the proper identification of respective counsel has been recorded. As per the CRM No. M-31120 of 2009 -2- statements recorded, the parties have entered into compromise voluntary and amicably and do not wish to pursue the present FIR.
The FIR had been registered on 10.7.2009 under Section 420 IPC. There was a dispute in relation to a specific performance of contract for which the complainant had already been filed a civil suit for specific performance.
During the pendency of this criminal miscellaneous compromise has been effected between the parties.
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 CRM No. M-31120 of 2009 -3- 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 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."
The ratio of the Full Bench judgment is a special reference has been made to the offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide where the victim dies in the CRM No. M-31120 of 2009 -4- 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) R.C.R. (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 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 a re, cannot afford."
Keeping in view the status report, this Court has no hesitation to quash the FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising CRM No. M-31120 of 2009 -5- therefrom.
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 Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), FIR No. 124 dated 10.7.2009 under Section 420 IPC registered at Police Station Khanna is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners.
The petition stands disposed of.
24.2.2011 (RITU BAHRI) 'sp' JUDGE