Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nand Kishore Sharma vs State Of Punjab And Others on 12 November, 2013
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
Crl. Misc. No. M-32337 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-32337 of 2013
Date of decision: 12.11.2013
Nand Kishore Sharma ..Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and Others ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr. Rajvir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Premjit Singh Hundal, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Anuj Kohli, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
*****
Daya Chaudhary, J.(Oral)
The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 146 dated 31.08.2012 registered at Police Station Matour, District SAS Nagar Mohali for offence punishable under Section 409 IPC on the basis of compromise effected between the parties.
As per the allegations in the FIR, the petitioner misappropriated an amount of ` 28,867/- of respondent No. 2. Thereafter, the difference between the parties were sorted out as the compromise was effected between them. Complainant Vishal Sharma, Incharge of respondnt-bank has no objection in quashing of the FIR as the bank authorities is satisfied with the compromise as the amount mis-appropriated by the petitioner has been deposited. The bank has no grouse against the accused person.
While issuing notice of motion on 25.09.2013 a direction was Sharma Poonam 2013.11.20 13:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-32337 of 2013 2 also issued to the parties to appear before the trial Court for recording their statements with regard to compromise. The statements of the parties were recorded wherein factum of compromise has been affirmed. Compromise is as per free will, voluntary consent and without any undue influence. Complainant has specifically stated in his statment that he is having original power of attorney executed by the bank whereby he was authorised to appear in the Court on behalf of the bank and he has been authorised by the bank to enter into compromise. He has also stated that he has no objection in the quashing of the FIR against the petitioner. Similarly one Manav Puri who is legal executive of the bank also appeared before the trial Court and his statement was recorded and he also has no objection is quashing of the FIR.
In Kulwinder Singh and others vs State of Punjab and others, reported as 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, the Larger Bench of our own High Court has held that the High Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences, notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code in order to prevent abuse of the process any Court or to secure the ends of justice. In Kulwinder Singh's case, the Larger Bench has also observed :-
"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 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 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."Sharma Poonam 2013.11.20 13:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-32337 of 2013 3
The Apex Court in the case of `Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab', reported as 2008 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 429:2008 (2) R.A.J. 529: (2008) 4 SCC 582 emphasized in para No. 6 as follows:-
"6. 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 bereft of the technicalities of the law."
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of B.S.Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and anr., reported as 2003 (2) RCR (Criminal) 888, in para 6 and 11, held as under:-
"6. In Pepsi Food Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., 1997 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 761: (1998) 5 SCC 749, this Court with reference to Bhajan Lal's case observed that the guidelines laid therein as to where the court will exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code could not be inflexible or laying rigid formulae to be followed by the courts. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is well settled that these powers have no limits. Of course, where there is more power, it becomes necessary to exercise utmost care and caution which invoking such powers.
11. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors., 1988 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 565 : (1988) 1 SCC 692, it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appears in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings."
Since the dispute between the parties has been settled by way of Sharma Poonam 2013.11.20 13:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-32337 of 2013 4 compromise. The complainant-bank has no grouse against the petitioner as earnest money has been deposited with the bank and the respondent-bank is satisfied and does not want to proceed with the case against the petitioner and hence has no objection in quashing of FIR.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and impugned criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 146 dated 31.08.2012 registered at Police Station Matour, District SAS Nagar Mohali for offence punishable under Section 409 IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner namely Nand Kishore Sharma are hereby quashed.
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) 12.11.2013 JUDGE Poonam (II) Sharma Poonam 2013.11.20 13:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh