Punjab-Haryana High Court
Palvinder Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 11 January, 2012
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Crl. Misc. No. M-1062 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-1062 of 2012
Date of decision : 11.01.2012
Palvinder Singh and others ......Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mrs. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Advocate
for for complainant/respondent No. 2
****
RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral)
Issue notice of motion.
On asking of Court, Mr. Raja Sharma, AAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the State.
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.203 dated 30.12.2011 under Sections 406/420/120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station Ambala Sadar, District Ambala and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2), entered between the parties.
Brief facts of the case are that the F.I.R was registered against the petitioners at the instance of respondent No. 2. The allegation in the F.I.R is that the petitioners have not returned the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- Crl. Misc. No. M-1062 of 2012 -2-
During the pendency of the investigation, both the parties arrived at a compromise with the intervention of respectable persons and amicably settled the dispute between them. Respondent No. 2 has agreed to withdraw all the proceedings pending against the petitioners. Compromise deed is Annexure P-2. Respondent No. 2 has filed his affidavit in which he has stated that after registration of F.I.R of the case, the compromise has been effected between the parties and ha has no objection if the F.IR. is quashed against the petitioners.
Respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and admitted the factum of compromise and stating that due to intervention of respectable and relatives, the matter has been compromised with the petitioners and now he is having no objection if the FIR in question with consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed . Respondent No.2-complainant is present in the Court and has identified by his counsel. The compromise is voluntarily and without any pressure. As per compromise (Annexure P-2 ), both the parties have settled the dispute amicably as per the conditions recorded in the compromise. Counsel for respondent No. 2 has also filed the affidavit dated 11.01.2012 of the complainant in which it has been submitted that the complainant do not want to pursue the case. The compromise (Annexure P-2) is genuine and valid as per the affidavit dated 11.01.2012 given by the complainant.
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 Crl. Misc. No. M-1062 of 2012 -3- 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, Crl. Misc. No. M-1062 of 2012 -4- 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.
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- Crl. Misc. No. M-1062 of 2012 -5- 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.203 dated 30.12.2011 under Sections 406/420/120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station Ambala Sadar, District Ambala (Annexure P1) is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners.
Accordingly, the petitions stand disposed of.
(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE January 11, 2012 G.Arora