Punjab-Haryana High Court
Maghar Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 17 January, 2012
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Criminal Misc. No. M-2610 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-2610 of 2011 (O & M)
Date of decision:-17.01.2012
Maghar Singh and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present:- Ms. Gagan Geet Kaur, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Rajinder Mathur, AAG Punjab.
Ms. Meena Bansal, 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. 111 dated 07.10.2010 under Sections 406,420 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Ghagga, District Patiala on the basis of compromise.
Brief facts of the case are that Kulbir Kaur-respondent No.2 is real niece of petitioner No.1-Maghar Singh. The grand son of Maghar Singh namely Gurtej Singh has settled in Cyprus. Petitioner No.1 suggest the respondent No.2 to send her brother-in-law (devar) namely Chamkaur Singh to Cyprus for doing work. A settlement was arrived at Rs.7,80,000/- to send Chamkaur Singh to Cyprus through agent Bobby, who is also in Cyprus. The amount was given in two instalments to the petitioners. After sending Chamkaur Singh to Criminal Misc. No. M-2610 of 2011 -2- Cyprus the complainant came to know that Chamkaur Singh is not working at Cyprus and as per complainant the amount given by her to settle her brother-in-law has been used by the petitioners. In this background the present FIR has been registered.
Respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and filed her reply by way of short affidavit admitting the factum of compromise and stating that the petitioners are her close relatives and due to intervention of respectable and relatives, the matter has been compromised with the petitioner and now he is 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 has identified by her counsel. The compromise is voluntarily and without any pressure. As per compromise 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.
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 Criminal Misc. No. M-2610 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-2610 of 2011 -4- 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-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."Criminal Misc. No. M-2610 of 2011 -5-
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. 111 dated 07.10.2010 under Sections 406,420 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Ghagga, District Patiala is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners.
The petition stands disposed of.
January 17, 2012 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE