Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Kaur Chahal vs State Of Punjab And Another on 12 January, 2012
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Crl. Misc.No. M- 33551 of 2011 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc.No. M- 33551 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision : 12.01.2012
Rajinder Kaur Chahal .....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Manish Soni, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. Abhishek Chautala, A.A.G., Punjab
Mr. Varun Baanth, 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.272 dated 29.07.2006 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 406/420 of IPC, registered at Police Station Division No.6, District Jalandhar and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 03.05.2011 (Annexure P3) and further seeking quashing of order dated 21.04.2008 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar.
Brief fact of the case are that the application bearing No. 1975 dated 02.06.2006 was submitted before S.S.P Jalandhar by Narinder Singh- respondent No. 2 on the allegation that the petitioner had cheated him to Crl. Misc.No. M- 33551 of 2011 (O&M) -2- the tune of Rs. 2,25,000/- on the pretext of sending him to Canada. In the month of December, 2005, complainant along with his father visited the office of petitioner for making arrangement of complainant for going abroad to Canada on study basis. The petitioner demanded Rs. 2,50,000/- form the complainant for sending him abroad. It was further alleged that on 03.12.2005, sum of Rs. 10,000/-, on 05.12.2005, sum of Rs. 70,000/-, on 06.12.2005 sum of Rs. 90,000/- and on 08.12.2005 sum of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 5000 without any receipt was given by the complainant to petitioner. The complainant was assured that till 06.01.2006 he will be sent to Canada on study basis. After more than six months, the petitioner had neither sent him abroad nor returned his money. Thereafter, the complainant demanded his money back on which petitioner refused to return the money. In the above background, F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner.
Thereafter, warrant of arrest was issued by Hon'ble Court against petitioner No. 1 on 06.12.2007 on account of non-appearance. Ultimately, the petitioner was declared as Proclaimed Offender on 21.04.2008.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are totally false and fabricated. Her husband who was the owner of Chahal Education Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. Jalandhar died and thereafter, after his death, the competitors who were in the same business played a well calculated ploy on the present petitioner. However, the matter has now been compromised with respondent No. 2. As Crl. Misc.No. M- 33551 of 2011 (O&M) -3- per compromise, Rs.45,000/- out of Rs. 1,50,000/- has already been paid to the complainant/respondent No. 2, vide demand draft bearing No. 507457 dated 29.04.2011 drawn on Punjab National Bank. It was further decided between the parties that the remaining amount Rs.1,05,000/- will be given att he time of quashing of the compromise. As per compromise, the petitioner and complainant are bound to withdraw all the cases pending against each other as the entire dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and no useful purpose will be served in continuation of criminal proceedings.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has put in appearance and filed the affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 2. As per affidavit, due to intervention of respectable persons of Society, the complainant has compromised the matter for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Rs. 45,000/- has been received by the complainant vide demand draft bearing No. 507457 dated 29.04.2011. The complainant has also received the balance amount i.e Rs. 1,05,000/- by way of demand draft of Rs. 49,000/- bearing no. 261928 dated 10.01.2012 and demand draft bearing No 510895 dated 10.01.2012 of Rs. 49,000/- and another demand draft bearing No. 510894 dated 10.01.2012 amounting to Rs. 7,000/-. So, the complainant has received Rs.1,50,000/- as a full and final settlement. The complainant has now no objection if the F.I.R be quashed against the petitioner.
The petitioner after registration of the above said F.I.R was declared as Proclaimed Offender on 21.04.2008 (P-2). Learned counsel for Crl. Misc.No. M- 33551 of 2011 (O&M) -4- the petitioner is seeking quashing of order dated 21.04.2008 as well as quashing of F.I.R. As far as order dated 21.04.2008 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner is seeking quashing of this order on the ground that after the amendment of Section 82(4) Section 406/420 does not fall in the category of offences, where the proclamation orders can be passed against the accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of 'Balbir Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2011(3) R.C.R (Criminal) 234 wherein while quashing of the order of Proclaimed Offender, which was civil in nature, the Court has observed as under:-
"10. In the present case also a civil suit is pending which the complainant/respondent No. 2 in terms of compromise deed dated 12.08.2010 (annexure P-1) has agreed to withdraw.Therefore, the matter being civil in nature and also the fact that the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and the complainant in terms of the compromise deed dated 12.8.2010 (Annexure P-1) and the complainant has also agreed to withdraw the civil suit it would be just and expedient to terminate the proceedings by quashing the F.IR. As the dispute even, if any, has been amicably resolved".
Since Section 406/420 IPC do not fall under Section 82(4), the order dated 21.04.2008 declaring the petitioner Proclaimed Offender is quashed, as held by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of 'Satinder Singh Crl. Misc.No. M- 33551 of 2011 (O&M) -5- vs. The State of U.T. Chandigarh and another, 2011(2) R.C.R (Criminal) 89 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 Crl. Misc.No. M- 33551 of 2011 (O&M) -6- 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.
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- 33551 of 2011 (O&M) -7- 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."
Order dated 21.04.2008 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar declaring the petitioner Proclaimed Offender, is hereby set aside.
Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (supra), 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.272 dated 29.07.2006 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 406/420 of IPC, registered at Police Station Division No.6, District Jalandhar is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner.
The petition stands disposed of.
(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE January 12, 2012 G.Arora