Pardeep Kumar & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.S.S.Chandumajra, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1-State. Mr.Kamal Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Tersenessly, the facts, which need a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the present petition and emanating from the record, are that the sons of complainant-Bant Singh (respondent No.2) son of Gurdev Singh and complainant-Gokal Singh(respondent No.3) son of Barkha Ram, were residing in Malaysia, for the last two years, prior to the present occurrence. The complainants claimed that petitioner-accused Vinod Kumar met their sons in Malaysia and promised to send them to France. The case of the prosecution further proceeds that in the wake of reference of their sons, the complainants paid Rs.8,20,000/- to the father of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, in lieu of promise of main accused-Vinod Kumar to send their sons from Malaysia to France. But they did not fulfill their promise, defrauded respondent Nos.2 and 3 and misappropriated their indicated amount. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainants, the present case was registered CRM No.M-16218 of 2010 2 against the petitioners-accused, vide FIR No.78 dated 01.08.2008(Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station Bhadson, District Patiala. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report/challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C., against the accused to face the trial for the commission of indicated offences in the trial Court.

What is not disputed here is that during the pendency of the case, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their all disputes and entered into agreement/compromise(Annexure P-3). Complainants-respondent Nos.2 and 3 have also filed their separate affidavits(Annexures P-4 and P-5) in this respect.

In this manner, now the petitioners have instituted the present petition for quashing the FIR(Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings thereto on the basis of agreement/compromise(Annexure P-3), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter alia, pleading that the parties have compromised the matter with the intervention of the respectables and the witnesses. They have settled their all disputes and the compromise has been arrived between them with their free consent without any threat or coercion. Complainants-respondent Nos.2 and 3 are today present in the Court and have reiterated and maintained vide their separately recorded statements that they have entered into agreement/compromise(Annexure P-3) and the same is in their welfare and benefit.

Not only that, in pursuance of the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Gurdev Singh, J.), the trial Magistrate has sent the report, after recording the statements of the parties, which are to the following effect:-

Statement of complainant-Bant Singh son of Gurdev Singh, 55 years, r/o village Matorda. On S.A. Stated that the matter has been compromised with the accused and we have received the requisite payment from the accused and now I CRM No.M-16218 of 2010 3 do not want to pursue the present case. The matter has voluntarily compromised with my free consent and without any coercion or pressure. Statement of Gokul Singh son of Barkha Singh, aged 50 years, r/o village Matorda, Baldev Singh son of Barkha Singh, 55 years, r/o village Matorda and Nachhatar Singh son of Narain Singh, 65 years, r/o village Matorda. On S.A. Stated that since the matter has been compromised between the complainant and the accused, therefore, we do not want to pursue with the present case and the matter has been compromised with our free consent without any threat or coercion.

Above being the position on record, now the sole question that arises for determination in this petition is as to whether it would be expedient in the interest of justice to quash the criminal proceedings or not?

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to me, justice would be sub-served if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter in this relevant behalf.

It is not a matter of dispute that the law of settlement of criminal disputes by virtue of compromise is not res integra and is well settled. The clear and explicit intention of the Legislature in this context was transformed in reality by Hon'ble Apex Court in cases Manoj Sharma v. State & Ors. 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 827; B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana 2003 (2) RCR (Crl.) 888 (SC) and Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052.

The crux of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is that the power under Section 482 Cr.PC has no limits. However, the High Court will CRM No.M-16218 of 2010 4 exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever- lasting congeniality in society and resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same, unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery if the statement is fair being free from under pressure. Meaning thereby, the High Court has unlimited power to quash the criminal proceedings, relatable to such like cases, on the basis of lawful settlement. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is fully attracted in the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.

As is evident from the record that in the instant case, as the parties have lawfully agreed to settle the disputes vide agreement/compromise(Annexure P-3), therefore, to me, there is no impediment in translating the wishes of the parties into reality and to quash the criminal prosecution to set the matter at rest to enable them to live in peace and to enjoy the life and liberty in a dignified manner as guaranteed by and as contemplated in the Constitution of India.

In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No.78 dated 01.08.2008(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and the petitioners are acquitted, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. November 10, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) JUDGE