Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdev Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 8 April, 2011
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Crl. Misc. No. M-10924 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-10924 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision:- 08.04.2011
Sukhdev Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present:- Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate
for respondent No. 2
RITU BAHRI J.(Oral)
Notice of motion.
On asking of Court, Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl. A.G, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State.
This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No.4 dated 24.01.2011 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, registered at Police Station Majitha, District Amritsar and all subsequent proceedings out of the FIR qua the petitioner, on the basis of compromise/affidavit dated 05.04.2011(Annexure P2) arrived at between the parties.
Brief facts of the case are that, as per the F.I.R, this dispute relates between father and son. This F.I.R (Annexure P1) was registered against the petitioner by respondent No. 2, who is the father of the petitioner on the allegations that on the pretext of getting a will executed by his father, the petitioner had executed a registered transfer deed regarding the land of the father i.e respondent No. 2 After the registration of the F.I.R, the matter has been amicably Crl. Misc. No. M-10924 of 2011 -2- settled between father and son. As per the compromise, members of the neighbourhood and relatives have got a compromise effected between him and his son Sukhdev Singh and complainant does not want to take any legal action against petitioner as grudge has been removed and he has further no objection if the FIR in question is cancelled.
Respondent No. 2 appeared through counsel and filed his reply by way of short affidavit, which is taken on record, admitting the factum of compromise and stating that due to intervention of respectable, the matter has been compromised with the petitioner and now they are having no objection if the FIR in question with consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed qua petitioner. Respondent No.2-complainant is present in the Court and have 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 the respondent does not dispute the genuineness of the compromise/affidavit annexed with the petition.
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 Crl. Misc. No. M-10924 of 2011 -3- 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, 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."
Crl. Misc. No. M-10924 of 2011 -4-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-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 judgments of the Hon'ble Crl. Misc. No. M-10924 of 2011 -5- 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.4 dated 24.01.2011 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, registered at Police Station Majitha, District Amritsar is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner.
The petition stands disposed of.
April 08, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) G.Arora JUDGE