Punjab-Haryana High Court
Neena Sharma vs State Of Punjab And Another on 23 January, 2012
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Crl. Misc. No. M-2143 of 2012 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-2143 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision : 23.01.2012
Neena Sharma ......Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Ms. Shelly Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Abhishek Chautala, AAG, Punjab
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, 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. 134 dated 30.10.2011 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 406/420 of IPC and Section 24 of Immigration Act, registered at Police Station Mataour, District S.A.S Nagar and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 19.01.2012 (Annexure P-2).
Brief fact of the case are that the above said F.I.R was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2 on the ground that the company of Neena Sharma-petitioner had taken Rs. 1 lac from the complainant and his passport on account of sending him to Canada but the Crl. Misc. No. M-2143 of 2012 (O&M) -2- complainant was not sent. He further alleged that neither his money nor his passport had been given back by the petitioner.
However, with the intervention of respectable, the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. AS per compromise, petitioner is ready to pay Rs. 1 lac to respondent No. 2. They have settled the dispute and does not want to pursue the above said case. The compromise is without any pressure, coercion, with free will and without any compulsion from any one. Compromise deed is dated 19.01.2012 (Annexure P-2) Respondent No.2-complainant appeared through counsel and filed his reply by way of short affidavit dated 23.01.2012 admitting the factum of compromise stating that due to intervention of respectable, the matter has been compromised with the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 has 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 been identified by her counsel. The compromise is voluntarily and without any pressure. As per compromise dated 19.01.2012 (Annexure P-2), both the parties have settled the dispute amicably as per the conditions recorded in the compromise. As per affidavit dated 23.01.2012, the compromise is held to be genuine and fair.
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-2143 of 2012 (O&M) -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, 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-2143 of 2012 (O&M) -4- 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- 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.Crl. Misc. No. M-2143 of 2012 (O&M) -5-
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's (supra), the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh's (supra), FIR No. 134 dated 30.10.2011 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 406/420 of IPC and Section 24 of Immigration Act, registered at Police Station Mataour, District S.A.S Nagar, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner.
The petition stands disposed of.
(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE January 23, 2012 G.Arora