Manjit Kaur and Another vs State of Punjab and Another

Daya Chaudhary, J.—The present petition has been filed on behalf of petitioners, namely, Manjit Kaur and Harwinder Pal Singh alias Rinku for quashing of FIR No. 13 dated 04.02.2012 registered under Sections 380, 420, 201 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Raikot, District Ludhiana Rural and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise effected between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during pendency of the proceedings, a compromise was effected between the parties and the dispute between them has been settled.

Vide Order dated 08.07.2013, a direction was issued to the parties to appear before the trial Court for recording of their statements with regard to compromise and the trial Court was directed to send its report along with statements of the parties.

In pursuance to the said directions, a report in this regard has been sent which is on record, wherein, it has been mentioned that the parties appeared before the trial Court and their statements were recorded. It is further mentioned therein that the compromise effected between the parties is without any pressure and coercion and there is no other case pending against the parties and none of the parties has been declared as proclaimed offender by any competent Court.

As per statements of the petitioners as well as complainant-Nazar Singh, the compromise effected between them is without any pressure, fear or influence. It has been stated by the complainant in his statement that the FIR be quashed as he does not want to proceed with the proceedings against the accused persons.

In Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, reported as 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, the Larger Bench of our own High Court has held that the High Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings eve in non-compoundable offences, notwithstanding the bar u/s 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code in order to prevent abuse of the process any Court or to secure the ends of justice. In Kulwinder Singh''s case, the Larger Bench has also observed:-

The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power u/s 482 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 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.

The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, emphasized in para No. 6 as follows:-

We need to emphasize 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 utilized 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.

Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, in para 6 and 11, held as under:-

In Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, , this Court with reference to Bhajan Lal''s case observed that the guidelines laid therein as to where the court will exercise jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code could not be inflexible or laying rigid formulae to be followed by the courts. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is well settled that these powers have no limits. Of course, where there is more power, it becomes necessary to exercise utmost care and caution which invoking such powers.

In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Others Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Others, , it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing u/s 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appears in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings.

In view of the statements of the parties and also the fact that the parties are closely related to each other as petitioner No. 2 is son of petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2-complainant is brother-in-law of petitioner No. 1, the dispute arose between the parties because of ancestral property has been compromised as the settled amount has been paid to the complainant, the compromise is genuine as stated by the trial Court and also as per ratio of judgment in case Kulwinder Singh and others (supra), the FIR can be quashed even in non-compoundable offence, I am of the considered view that continuation of impugned criminal proceedings between the parties would be an exercise in futility. The complainant does not want to pursue these proceedings and it shall merely be a formality and sheer wastage of precious time of the Court as the complainant would not support the case of prosecution in view of compromise arrived at between the parties. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and impugned criminal proceedings arising out of 13 dated 04.02.2012 registered under Sections 380, 420, 201, 34 IPC at Police Station Raikot, District Ludhiana Rural and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners namely Manjit Kaur and Harwinder Pal Singh alias Rinku are quashed.