Criminal Misc. No.M-32321 of 2009 v. Union Territory, Chandigarh & Anr.

Ms. Ashima Mor, APP, U.T. Administration, Chandigarh. Mr. Joginder Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 present in person. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.172 dated 27.9.2009 (Annexure-P.1) registered at Police Station Sector 19, Chandigarh. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Kulvinder Singh (respondent No.2). It is alleged by the complainant- respondent No.2 that he and his father Gurcharan Singh do business of sale/purchase of scooters. They had a litigation with their landlord, namely, Pal Singh (petitioner No.1). Despite, an order of stay in their favour the landlord Pal Singh and his son, namely, Balwinder Singh (Petitioner No.2) were harassing them. They had also made a false report in the Estate Office. The father of the complainant, namely, Gurcharan Singh died on 14.9.2009. Due to the demise, the complainant could not open the shop.

On 22.9.2009, at 4.00 p.m. when the complainant opened the shop to give some documents Cr. Misc. No.M-32321 of 2009 [2] and papers to Harpal Singh, then Pal Singh (petitioner No.1) and his son (petitioner No.2) came to his shop and asked the complainant to vacate the shop. They threatened the complainant and stated that they know how the shop is to be got vacated. On 23.9.2009, there was `Bhog' ceremony of the father of the complainant. On the date of recording the DDR vide entry No.28 i.e. on 25.9.2009 at about 3.00 p.m. when the complainant came to his shop then he saw that the lock of the shop had been broken and another lock had been put. The key of the inter-lock was with him. There was an almirah, counter, iron almirah in which fan and documents of many vehicles were there. Besides, Rs.15,000/- had been kept. The parts of vehicles, cheque book, passbook, table, chair and fan belt were there in the shop.

The entire act had been committed by Pal Singh (petitioner No.1) and his sons who were residing at Village Haripur, Panchkula. It was requested that legal action be taken. On the basis of the said complaint, the FIR (Annexure-P.1) was registered on 27.9.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and a compromise deed dated 12.11.2009 has been recorded. In terms of the said compromise, it has been agreed that the petitioners would be responsible for the payment of Rs.3,73,000/- which is to be paid for misuse of the premises and the petitioners would not raise any claim to this against the complainant (respondent No.2). It is submitted that the matter having been amicably settled, the FIR is liable to be quashed. In response, learned counsel for the Union Territory Administration has submitted that the case is still under investigation and Cr.

Misc. No.M-32321 of 2009 [3] challan has not so far been filed. However, in case the matter is amicably settled, the Union Territory Administration would have no serious objection to its quashing. Leaned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that since the matter has been amicably resolved, the complainant-respondent No.2 has no objection to the quashing of the FIR (Annexure-P.1). Respondent No.2 is present in Court and is identified by his counsel Shri Joginder Sharma. It is submitted by respondent No.2 that he has no objection to the quashing of the FIR and that he is making his statement on his own free will and desire and without any kind of pressure or undue influence. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. The dispute in the case is between a landlord and his tenant. Pal Singh (petitioner No.1) had filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against his tenants Surinder Singh and Gurcharan Singh.

The latter is the father of the complainant Kulvinder Singh (respondent No.2). The ejectment petition was decided in favour of the petitioners upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Gurcharan Singh, who was occupying some portion of the demised shop-cum-flat No.7, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh was proceeded against ex parte before the Rent Controller. He had filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking setting aside of the ex parte order which was pending before the Rent Controller. Gurcharan Singh died on 14.9.2009. After his demise his son Kulvinder Singh (respondent No.2) lodged the FIR (Annexure-P.1) alleging theft of articles and breaking of the lock of the shop. It is stated that the FIR had been registered due to some misunderstanding which has now been settled with the intervention of Cr. Misc. No.M-32321 of 2009 [4] respectables, relatives and the parties themselves.

In the facts and circumstances, the dispute between the parties is personal in nature. Kulvinder Singh-complainant (respondent No.2) has also filed an affidavit dated 12.11.2009 (Annexure-P.3) in which he has accepted the execution of the compromise deed dated 12.11.2009. It is stated that he has no objection to the quashing of the FIR. 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 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.” A larger Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Cr.) 1052 (5 Judges) 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 Cr. Misc. No.M-32321 of 2009 [5] 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.