Gurdev Singh vs Daljit Singh

Jaswant Singh, J.—Present petition u/s 482 Cr.PC is for quashing of complaint No. 125 dated 24.3.2001 under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC as well as summoning order dated 29.8.2003 passed by JMIC, Hoshiarpur on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.

In the complaint filed by the Respondent-Daljit Singh, it was averred that the Petitioner-accused had agreed to sell his land for consideration amount of Rs. 1,42,000/-but he had not turned up before the office of Registrar for getting the sale deed executed on the date fixed as he was not having any land in his name. Jamabandi submitted by the Petitioner is alleged to be false and forged one.

Vide order dated 1.11.2010, this Court directed the learned trial Court to send report with regard to compromise in pursuance of which, a report/letter dated 26.11.2010 has been received from the ACJM, Hoshiarpur, which is taken on record as Mark-A. It is stated in the report that the complainant has arrived at a compromise with the accused-Petitioner and he has no objection if the aforesaid FIR is quashed on the basis of compromise.

Hon''ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and 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 u/s 482 of the Code.

A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. 2007(3) RCR 1052 has held that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers u/s 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 u/s 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 u/s 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 Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and 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 Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, , 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 impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of the FIR in the interest of justice.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and complaint No. 125 dated 24.3.2001 under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC as well as summoning order dated 29.8.2003 passed by JMIC, Hoshiarpur are quashed.