Satish vs State of Haryana

Ritu Bahri , J. (Oral) - The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.190 dated 24.08.2004 under Sections 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ''the Code'') registered at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt (Annexure P-1), the order of framing of charge dated 07.09.2007 and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3).

Brief facts of the case are that the above FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2. As per FIR, the dispute arose between the parties on account of agreement to sell dated 19.09.2002. As per this agreement to sell, the accused party was ready to sell their land measuring 7K-14M bearing Khasra No. 18//20/2 measuring 3 kanals 7 marlas and Khasra No. 18//11 measuring 4 kanals and Khasra No. 19/37 measuring 7 marlas situated at village Khuda Khurd, Jagadhri Road, Ambala and the total amount was settled for a sum of Rs. 26,00,000/-.he State of Gujarat v. Patel Ada Megha50,000/- was received cash by the accused No. 1 at the time of executing the agreement on 19.09.2002 and the last date of executing the sale deed was fixed for 18.08.2004. It was settled that the complainant out of the total amount of twenty six lacs will pay a sum of twenty lacs to the bank for settling the loan taken by the accused persons after hypothecating the above said land to Punjab National Bank, SSI Branch, Ambala Cantt raised M/s Dhiman Rice Mills and the remaining amount of five lacs fifty thousands shall be paid by the complainant at the time of executing the sale deed. In the above background, FIR was registered against the petitioners.

After presentation of the challan, the parties have compromised the matter. As per this compromise, the case of the parties is pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Ambala Cantt for 07.9.2007. Now the case is being sent to Lok Adalat and the next date before Lok Adalat is 06.09.2007. The parties have settled for a compromise of their own will, which is as under:-

"2. That Satish Kumar and Rameshwar Dass of second party vide two agreement dated 19.09.2002 and 22.09.2002 of land measuring 7 kanal and 14 marla, khasra No. 181/20/2 (3 kanal 7 marla), 18//11 (4 kanal-o marla) 19//37 (o kanal 7 marla) situated in village khuda Khurd, Tehsil and Distt. Ambala, agreed to sell for 26 lacs with first party and Rs. 50,000/- as earnest money was received by Satish Kumar of second party. It was also settled in the agreement that first party from the side of Dhiman Rice Mill will pay Rs. 25 lacs in Punjab National Bank by 31.3.2004 and balance Fs. 5,50,000/- will be received by 18.8.2004 and then the land would be got registered in the name of Ist party. In pursuance of this compromise, the first party accordingly as per contentions mentioned in para No. 8 has deposited Rs. 19.24 lacs in the account of Dhiman Rice Mills in Punjab National Bank SSI Branch, Ambala Cantt. Further Ist party has given two lac rupees to Satish Kumar vide cheque dated 09.07.2003.

According to detail mentioned in para No. 1, Rs. 1,13,252/- has deposited in favour of 2nd party Satish Kumar and his wife''s loan account in Bank of Baroda and Ist Party has given Rs. 2,72,748/- in cash to second party Satish Kumar on 30.06.2004. And total amount of Rs. 25,60,000/- has been paid to second party Satish Kumar. Then second party Satish Kumar and Rameshwar Dass got executed two sale deeds dated 12.07.2004 in favour of Davinder Singh, Rajinder Singh, Kuldeep Singh, Meha Singh and Mohinder Singh. Now compromise has been effected between the first party and second party that Devinder Singh, Rajinder Singh, Kuldeep Singh, Meha Singh and Mohinder Singh of second party will get mutation in favour of Ist party within 10 days and would give statement in Lok Adalat too and second party would pay Rs. 40,000/- in the presence of Sub-Registrar at the time of registry. If the second party does not get registered the sale deed within stipulated period then first party will have right to get it executed to decree.

That Tilak Raj has got registered a criminal case against second party which is fixed for 07.09.2007 bearing FIR No.190 dated 24.08.2004, registered at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt under Sections 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC.

That both the parties have agreed that if the second party files any petition for quashing of FIR No.190 dated 24.08.2004, Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt , then first party would give his consent to quash the same in the Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Ist party would be bound by it. Because both the parties have entered into compromise.

That the above said compromise have been written with the consent of both the parties. So, it can be used at the appropriate time. Dated 6.9.2007, Place Ambala City"

After this compromise, the complainant has filed suit for specific performance of contract contained in agreement of sell deed dated 19.09.2002 and 22.09.2002, executed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2. This suit has been filed before Samjhauta Sadan/Permanent Lok Adalat, Ambala on 06.09.2007 (Annexure P-4). Lok Adalat grant the plaintiff a decree for specific performance of contract of sale in question and direct defendant Nos. 3 to 7 shall execute the sale deed at the expense of the plaintiff on receipt of Rs. 40,000/- within 10 days.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 filed the written statement of respondent No. 2 in the Court today and the same is taken on record. As per the written statement, respondent No. 2 has stated the petitioners did not honour the compromise as it was agreed between them that they will pay Rs. 12 lacs to respondent No. 2 and FIR will be got quashed thereafter. He has further stated that although this was not specifically mentioned in the compromise deed Annexure P-3 and it was orally agreed between the parties because of taxation purpose and this is the reason that no quashing petition was filed by the petitioner for a considerable period of more than 3 years and the petitioners did not pay even a single penny to respondent No. 2 and by taking undue advantage of compromise deed Annexure P3, the petitioners have filed the present petition before this Court. So, respondent No. 2 has stoutly denied that the compromise has been effected between the parties.

In compliance of order dated 15.09.2010, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court for recording of their statements. Report of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala Cantt has been received in this regard. As per this report, parties appeared in the Court and got recorded their staements. The complainant in his statement that an award passed in Lok Adalat but the accused Satish and Rameshwar Dass have committed fraud with him so there is no compromise with them. However, all the accused persons got recorded their statement to the effect that they had compromised the matter with respondent No. 2.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that once the compromise has been effected between the parties and since respondent No. 2 has admitted the factum of compromise before Lok Adalat, he cannot resile from his statement now at the time of quashing of the present F.I.R.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

After taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties , I find no force in the contentions raised by respondent No. 2 as the compromise has been duly effected between the parties and respondent No.2 had also admitted before Lok Adalat that the compromise has been effected.

Broad guidelines have been laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 for quashing the prosecution when parties entered into compromise. The Full Bench has observed that this power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-

"26.In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, (1980)1 SCC 63, Hon''ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the essence of compromise in the following words :-

"The finest hour of justice arrived propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion."

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) if the Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

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 under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social emity 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 under Section 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."

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429 has examined a case where quashing was sought of an FIR under Section 406 IPC being non-compoundable. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that :-

"1. No useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise - There was no possibility of conviction.

It is advisable that in the disputes where question involved is of purely personal nature and no public policy is involved - Court should ordinarily accept the compromise.

Keeping the matter alive with no possibility of conviction is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford."

Consequently, in view of the status report, compromise effected between the parties and in view of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the cases of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (supra), and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another (supra), FIR No.190 dated 24.08.2004 under Sections 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ''the Code'') registered at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt (Annexure P-1), the order of framing of charge dated 07.09.2007, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.