Criminal Misc. No.M-10474 of 2010 v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Ms. G.K. Mann, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. Kushaldeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.2 with Bachan Singh (respondent No.2). ..... S.S. Saron, J. On the last date of hearing when the case was taken up i.e. on

7.5.2010, respondent No.2 Bachan Singh had appeared and was identified by his counsel Kushaldeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate. It was stated by him that he had no objection to the quashing of FIR in view of the compromise. Time was taken to file his affidavit. Shri Kushaldeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.2- Bachan Singh has filed affidavit of Bachan Singh (respondent No.2) dated

19.5.2010 in Court today which is taken on record. Bachan Singh is present in Court and is identified by his counsel Mr. Kushaldeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate. He has stated that he has compromised with the petitioners and he has no objection if the FIR is quashed. In terms of the affidavit filed in Court also he has deposed that he has no objection if the FIR is quashed. Cr. Misc. No.M-10474 of 2010 [2] Heard learned counsel for the parties. The FIR No.98 dated 31.7.2001 (Annexure-P.2) has been registered at Police Station Payal, District Ludhiana on the complaint of Gurmail Kaur. It is alleged by the complainant that she is in joint possession of the land measuring 46 Bighas situated in Village Rauni, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. According to the complainant it is alleged by the accused (petitioners) that she had suffered a decree on 7.7.1992 (sic.

7.2.1992) in respect of the said property in their favour. The complainant submitted that she has not suffered any decree said to be dated 7.7.1992 (sic. 7.2.1992). She further alleged that the petitioners are threatening her of killing her in case she pursues any legal remedy against them. The complainant-Gurmail Kaur has since died on 18.10.2007 and her death certificate (Annexure-P.1) has been placed on record. Bachan Singh (respondent No.2) is the husband of the complainant Gurmail Kaur and he has compromised the matter with the accused (petitioners) vide compromise (Annexure-P.4). The compromise (Annexure-P.4) is signed by Bachan Singh (respondent No.2) as party No.1 and by the petitioners as party No.2 in the presence of Bharpur Singh Ex-Sarpanch and Narinder Singh, Ex- Panch. The charge in the case has not been framed and the trial has not commenced. It is stated by him that he has compromised the matter-FIR which was lodged by his wife Gurmail Kaur, who has since died. Besides, the compromise has been entered into of his own free will and desire and without any kind of pressure or undue influence. The nature of dispute is personal in nature. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted copy of the judgment and decree dated 13.10.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge Cr. Misc. No.M-10474 of 2010 [3] (Junior Division), Ludhiana. The complainant-Gurmail Kaur wife of Bachan Singh had filed a suit against the present petitioners No.1 to 4 inter alia praying for declaration to the effect that the judgment and decree dated

7.2.1992 passed by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Ludhiana in civil suit titled as Sadhu Singh and others v. Gurmail Kaur was void ab initio, illegal, without jurisdiction, non est and was liable to be ignored qua the rights of the plaintiff Gurmail Kaur. In the said suit Bachan Singh (respondent No.2) was impleaded as LR of Gurmail Kaur. Issue No.5A was framed to the effect whether there is a judgment and decree dated 7.2.1992 in favour of the defendants (now petitioners No.1 to 4) passed by the Court of Shri Hukam Chand, Sub Judge Ist Class, Ludhiana in case titled Sadhu Singh v. Gurmail Kaur, if so, its effect? The judgment and decree dated 7.2.1992 was upheld. However, it was held that the plaintiff (Bachan Singh- respondent No.2) was owner of the share to the extent which was not in conflict with the memorandum of family settlement and judgment and decree dated 7.2.1992 which came to 5 Bighas 13 Biswas out of total land measuring 46 Bighas 19 Biswas which had wrongly been mentioned as 45 Bighas approximately in the plaint. As such, the basis on which the complaint had been filed no longer stands. Even otherwise the matter has been compromised. In Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582, it was observed by the Supreme Court as follows: “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 Cr. Misc. No.M-10474 of 2010 [4] 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.” A larger Bench of five Judges of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Cr.) 1052 has observed as follows: “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) of 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 behavior. 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 amity and reduces friction, then it truly is `finest hour of justice'. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, Cr. Misc. No.M-10474 of 2010 [5] 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.” Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the impugned FIR and all consequential and subsequent proceedings in pursuance thereof shall stand quashed. August 2, 2010. *hsp* (S.S. Saron) Judge