Arti Brar vs Jagmohan Singh Brar

Sabina, J.—This petition has been filed by the petitioner u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of criminal complaint No. 59 dated 28.7.2011 (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 12.1.2012 (Annexure P-2). Vide order dated 22.3.2013, case was ordered to be put up before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. Before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, parties have amicably settled their dispute. Para Nos. 4 to 6 of the compromise read as under:--

In view of the above settlement having been arrived at, it has been agreed that the Party of the second Part will pay the Party of the First Part a total sum of Rs. 2,41,50,000/- ( Rs. Two Crores Forty one Lakhs Fifty thousand). Out of which the party of the Second Part has now paid a sum of Rs. 31,50,000/- ( Rs. Thirty one Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) to the party of the First Part. The above amount has been paid vide cheque No. 103928 dated 31.10.2013 drawn on Union Bank of India, Sector 8, Chandigarh in favour of Sh. Jagmohan Singh Brar.

The balance sum of Rs. 2,10,00,000/- ( Rs. Two Crores Ten Lakhs only) shall be deposited in the next week up to 13/11/2013 by way of an FDR (Fixed Deposit Receipt) in the name of party to the first part i.e. Jagmohan Singh Brar by the party to the second part in Civil Court, Chandigarh with reference to the civil suit No. 104 of 2011 pending between the parties. This balance sum of Rs. 2,10,00,000/- ( Rs. Two Crores Ten Lakhs only) by way of an FDR as stated above shall be delivered to the Party to the First Part by the Civil Court Chandigarh immediately upon the decreeing of the civil suit No. 104 of 2011 pending between the parties in terms of the settlement arrived at as aforesaid. Upon receipt of this payment, no other claim shall be agitated/raised by either party and or their ascendants or descendents against each other or their respective ascendants and descendants accordingly. No other dispute survives between either party and or their respective ascendants and descendants. The parties to the instant Settlement undertake that they will not violate any terms of the instant Settlement. Both the parties shall make due compliance with respect to the withdrawal of all the cases as per the instant settlement forthwith. If party of the first part resiles from any of the terms of the instant settlement, he shall be liable to return the amount of Rs. 31,50,000/- paid to him on the signing of the instant settlement. In such eventuality the party of the first part shall also be liable to forthwith get the FDR cancelled and refund the amount of Rs. 2,10,00,000/- (Rupees Two crores ten lacs only) to the second party along with the interested accumulated that he receives from the Bank with regard to this FDR. Similarly, if party of the second part resiles from any of the terms of the instant settlement, in such an eventuality, the Civil Court, Chandigarh shall release the FDR so deposited in favour of party of the first part instantly.

Party of the First Part hereby acknowledges that a case filed by one Sukhbirpal Singh against the party of the First Part and party of the Second Part-titled as "Sukhbirpal Singh v. Jagmohan Singh Brar and Aarti Jawandha" pending at the Civil Court at Moga shall be the absolute liability of party of the First Part. It shall be incumbent on the party of the First Party to settle with Sukhbirpal Singh on his own account and get the case withdrawn before passing of the decree in civil suit No. 104 of 2011 pursuant to the instant compromise. Nothing shall be claimable by party of the First Part against party of the Second Part in this regard.

Party of the First Part and the party of the Second Part hereby undertake to withdraw all civil cases and criminal complaints filed by the parties against each other at any court in India with regard to the issues and cases highlighted above forthwith including the contempt application filed by the party of the Second Part against the party of the First Party, as have been described above, before passing of the decree in Civil Suit No. 104 of 2011.

Respondent, who is present in person, has admitted the contents of the compromise effected between the parties (Annexure ''X''). He has further stated that he has no objection in case the complaint in question is ordered to be quashed in view of the compromise effected between the parties before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre.

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , High Court has power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

Hon''ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , has held as under:--

The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences u/s 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim''s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.

Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Criminal complaint No. 59 dated 28.7.2011 (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 12.1.2012 (Annexure P-2) are quashed.