The High Court · 2010

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. Mandhir Singh Virk, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab. *** JASWANT SINGH, J. Prayer is under section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of Criminal Complaint no.121 dated 15.5.2006 titled Sant Singh Vs. Bant Singh and others pending in the Court of SDJM, Sardulgarh, as well as consequential proceedings on the basis of compromise dated 7.10.2010(Annexure P-2). As per allegations in the complaint, respondent no.1- complainant Sant Singh had levelled allegations against petitioners to the effect that petitioner no.1-Bhola Ram Patwari in connivance with one Bant Singh had got entered the name of Bant Singh in place of respondent no.1- complainant Sant Singh in column no.4 regarding ownership in the Jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 in respect of property measuring 23 Crl. Misc. No.M 30368 of 2010 # 2# Kanal 16 marla bearing Killa No.60//6(8-0), 7(8-0), 8(5-7), 14/1(2-9) situated in village Ahlupur, Tehsil Sardulgarh District Mansa by tampering with the revenue record.

One other accused Bant Singh in connivance with petitioner-Bhola Ram Patwari executed an illegal transfer of ownership deed in favour of petitioners no.2 & 3 and one Saradara Ram for the land measuring 18 kanal 19 marla out of above mentioned land. Petitioners in connivance with each other and some other persons have cheated the respondent no.1-complainant Sant Singh. While issuing notice of motion parties were directed to appear before the learned trial court for getting their statements recorded in terms of the compromise and who shall submit its report regarding the genuineness of the compromise. Report (Mark-A) in the shape of letter dated 02.11.2010 of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sardulgarh has been received wherein it is stated that the parties appeared before that court and suffered statements recorded separately in terms of the compromise and stated that the matter between the parties has been compromised and complainant has no objection if the aforesaid FIR and all consequential proceedings are quashed against the petitioners.

From the report submitted it is evident that the dispute between the petitioners-accused and the complainant has been amicably resolved by entering into compromise wherein the complainant has stated that he has no objection if the present FIR against the petitioners-accused is quashed. Learned State Counsel is unable to raise any serious objection in view of the statements recorded in terms of the aforesaid compromise whereby the complainant is not willing to support his case. Crl. Misc. No.M 30368 of 2010 # 3# Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2003)4 SCC 675 B.S. Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Another has made it explicitly clear in para 15 of its judgment that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or effect the powers under Section 482 of the Code. A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v.

State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has also held that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash an FIR disclosing the commission of non- compoundable offences. The relevant extracts read as under:-

The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C., which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.

Hon'ble Apex Court in another case in J.T. 2008(9) S.C. 192 Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another while relying upon its decision in B.S. Joshi's case(supra) has also held that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of criminal proceedings and the continuance of the same after compromise between the parties would be a futile exercise.

Similar views were expressed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Crl. Misc. No.M 30368 of 2010 # 4# Madan Mohan Abot v. State of Punjab 2008(4) SCC 582, the relevant extract of which is as under:-

We need to emphasise 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 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 utilised 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.

Keeping in view the above settled legal position and taking into account the fact that both the parties have desired to live in peace and harmony and carry on with their lives without any ill will or rancour by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, it is evident that it is a fit case where there is no legal impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of the FIR in the interest of justice.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and Criminal Complaint no.121 dated 15.5.2006 titled Sant Singh Vs. Bant Singh and others pending in the Court of SDJM, Sardulgarh as well as the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed against the petitioners. 19th November, 2010 Vinay ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE