Balwinder Singh and Others vs State of Punjab and Another

Inderjit Singh, J.—This petition has been filed by petitioners Balwinder Singh, Harmit Singh, Dalbir Singh, Om Parkash and Rahul u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 22 dated 2.2.2013 registered at Police Station Lalru, District S.A.S. Nagar for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and all the subsequent and consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 20.3.2013 (Annexure-P.2). Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the parties have entered into a compromise dated 20.3.2013 (Annexure-P.2) and have amicably settled their dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioners have placed on record the affidavit dated 12.9.2013 of Petitioners No. 1 and 2 Balwinder Singh and Harmeet Singh, in which they have deposed that the petitioners are giving two cheques to complainant-Ram Singh son of Ram Sarup i.e. Cheque No. 125485 from Balwinder Singh for a sum of Rs. 10 Lacs and another cheque No. 349507 from Harmit Singh for a sum of Rs. 7.5 Lacs as full and final payment as per settlement having arrived at amicably between them and nothing remains due recoverable from Balwinder Singh, Harmit Singh and Dalbir Singh.

Affidavit dated 12.9.2013 of complainant-respondent No. 2 Ram Singh has also been placed on record, in which he has deposed that agreement dated 3.10.2011 in respect of 16 Bighas out of the land 49 Bighas 19 Biswas situated in the revenue estate of Village Alamgir had been cancelled and he has no right, title and interest in the land as the matter has been amicably settled and petitioners Balwinder Singh, Dalbir Singh and Harmit Singh are lawful owners in possession of 16 Bighas of land out of 49 Bighas 19 Biswas. He has further deposed as the matter has been amicably settled, he has no objection if the above FIR is quashed. He has further deposed that he has received above mentioned two cheques amounting to Rs. 10 Lacs and Rs. 7.5 Lacs.

In view of the above affidavit of the complainant, he has admitted the factum of compromise with the petitioners. He has also admitted that said compromise was effected without any threat, pressure or coercion.

Learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, and learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No. 2, admit the factum of compromise and have no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings qua the petitioners arising therefrom are quashed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

The FIR is only for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and on the basis of compromise effected between the parties, the dispute has amicably been sorted out. Complainant-respondent No. 2 has already placed on record his affidavit dated 12.9.2013 in support of compromise (Annexure-P.2). Since the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak.

After giving my thoughtful consideration to the mater, it may be noticed that in Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, , it was observed by the Hon''ble 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 Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (5 Judges) 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(9) of the Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C.

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 u/s 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, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers u/s 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 factum of compromise and the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (supra) and by a Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another (supra), this petition is allowed and FIR No. 22 dated 2.2.2013 registered at Police Station Lalru, District S.A.S. Nagar for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and all the subsequent and consequential proceedings qua the petitioners arising therefrom are hereby quashed.