Mr. VPS Sidhu, AAG, Punjab. Ms. Shivani Sapehia, Advocate & Ors. v. State of Punjab and another & Ors.

Mr. VPS Sidhu, AAG, Punjab. Ms. Shivani Sapehia, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3 with respondents No.2 and 3 in person. *** S.S. SARON, J. Harpal Kaur (respondent No.2) and Kuldeep Singh (respondent No.3) are present in Court with their counsel Ms. Shivani Sapehia, Advocate. The Vakalatnama filed by her in Court today along with the affidavits of respondents No.2 and 3 are taken on record. Respondents No.2 and 3 have stated that they have no objection to the quashing of FIR No.132 dated 18.11.2002 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Dialpura, District Bathinda for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471 and 120-B IPC and the subsequent proceedings in pursuance thereof and they are making their statements of their own free will and desire and without any kind of pressure or undue influence. They have also filed their affidavits in this regard. In the affidavits that have been filed, it is submitted that the matter with the petitioners have been compromised on the Crl. Misc. No. M-14919 of 2010 [2] intervention of respectables and now no dispute is pending between them and the petitioners. The Compromise (Annexure P6) bears their thumb impressions and the same has been entered into voluntarily without any pressure from anyone. They do not want to proceed further in the case. Heard counsel for the parties. The dispute in the case is that Surjit Singh (petitioner No.2) and Rikhi Singh (deceased) - husband of Harpal Kaur (respondent No.2) were brothers. The FIR was got registered on the complaint of Rikhi Singh (deceased) alleging that Surjit Singh (petitioner No.2) fraudulently got the sale deed No.390 dated

6.6.2002 registered in favour of Jaskaran Singh (petitioner No.3) in connivance with the Sub-Registrar (petitioner No.1) and other accused. The dispute therefore is between two brothers one of whom has died and the wife of the deceased brother namely Harpal Kaur (respondent No.2) and his son namely Kuldeep Singh (respondent No.3) have amicably settled the dispute with his uncle Surjit Singh (petitioner No.2). The successors-in-interest of the complainant (respondents No.2 and 3) have submitted that they have no objection to the quashing of the FIR and the other proceedings. Hans Raj (petitioner No.1) is the Naib Tehsildar and Jaskaran Singh (petitioner No.3) is the vendee of the sale deed No.390 dated

6.6.2002. In Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 582 it was observed by the Supreme Court as follows:- We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where by question Crl. Misc. No. M-14919 of 2010 [3] 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 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 realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law. Besides, a five Judges Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 has observed as follows:- “ 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-14919 of 2010 [4] (9) of the CrPC, or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the CrPC. 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 CrPC is sued 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 of the CrPC 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”. The case though is near completion, however, it is to be kept in view that in view of the close relationship of the brothers settling their dispute and to maintain peace, amity and good Crl. Misc. No. M-14919 of 2010 [5] relationship in the family, it would be just and expedient that the FIR is quashed. Learned State counsel has submitted that the State would have no serious objection to the quashing of the FIR if it is for the sake of peace and amity in the family. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, FIR No. 132 dated 18.11.2002 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Dialpura, District Bathinda for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471 and 120-B IPC, the short order dated 21.5.2005 (Annexure P2) and the chargesheet dated 21.5.2005 (Annexure P3) and all subsequent and consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phul are quashed in view of the compromise dated 1.5.2010 (Annexure P6). July 22, 2010 (S.S. SARON) JUDGE