Hakim Khan vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Dhirendra Mishra, J.—The petitioner has filed the instant petition and prayed for quashing of proceedings against him under Crime No. 876/2005 for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC registered at P.S. Durg on the complaint of respondent No. 5.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid offence was registered on the complaint of respondent No. 5 dated 12-9-2005 wherein he had alleged that he purchased the disputed land from one Balbir Singh for a consideration of Rs. 80,000/- vide registered sale deed of Annexure-P/9. The petitioner signed the above sale deed as witness, thereafter the same land was again sold by the petitioner as power of attorney holder of one Smt. Manjeet Kaur to one Chhabilal Gajendra for a consideration of Rs. 34,000/- on 15th September, 2004 (Annexure-P/4). The report was lodged on the basis of demarcation report submitted by the Revenue Inspector (Annexure-P/7). However, subsequently, the petitioner applied for demarcation before the Additional Collector and on the order of the Additional Collector, the land described in the sale deed of AnnexureP/4 as well as the land described in the sale deed of Annexure-P/9 were demarcated on 16/17-12-2008. The Assistant Superintendent Land Record, in his demarcation report, has mentioned that the lands sold through both the sale deeds are entirely different. The complainant/respondent No. 5 has already obtained possession of the purchased land. In view of the subsequent demarcation of the land in dispute, the petitioner and the complainant have entered into a compromise and executed a compromise deed on 28th August, 2008. The complainant has also sworn affidavit of Anenxure-P/13 in support of compromise deed.

The complainant and the petitioner are present in person. Shri N.R. Jaiswal stated before this Court that he has signed the compromise deed of his own free volition without any undue influence or pressure. He has already obtained possession of the land purchased by him through sale deed of Annexure-P/9.

In view of the above compromise, he does not intend to pursue his complaint against the petitioner any further and he has no objection if crime registered against the petitioner is quashed.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though offences punishable under Sections 467 and 468 of the IPC are non-compoundable, however, prosecution of the petitioner may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the compromise between the parties. Reliance is placed in the matter of Manoj Sharma v. State and Ors.1.

Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 as well as learned Counsel for the State also submitted that since the parties have resolved the dispute, which is civil in nature, through amicable compromise, the compromise entered into between the parties may be accepted and criminal proceedings against the petitioner may be quashed.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the compromise deed executed by the petitioner and respondent No. 5, which is also supported by the affidavit of respondent No. 5. I have also perused the demarcation report of Annexure-P/11 submitted by Assistant Superintendent of Land Record.

In the matter of Manoj Sharma (Supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court while considering the question whether the first information report under Sections 420, 468, 471, 34 and 120-B of the IPC can be quashed either u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has observed thus:

In our view, the High Court''s refusal to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the criminal proceedings cannot be supported. The First Information Report, which had been lodged by the complainant indicates a dispute between the complainant and the accused which is of a private nature. It is no doubt true that the First Information Report was the basis of the investigation by the Police authorities, but the dispute between the parties remained one of a personal nature. Once the complainant decided not to pursue the matter further, the High Court could have taken a more pragmatic view of the matter. We do not suggest that while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court could not have refused to quash the First Information Report, but what we do say is that the matter could have been considered by the High Court with greater pragmatism in the facts of the case. As we have indicated hereinbefore, the exercise of power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary to be exercised in the facts of each case.

From perusal of allegations of the First Information Report, it is evident that the dispute between the complainant and the accused is private in nature. It also appears that confusion regarding identity of subject matter of the land of 2 sale deeds has already been resolved by subsequent demarcation and the parties have amicably settled the dispute between them thereafter.

In view of the above, I am of the opinion that when the complainant has decided not to pursue the matter any further, it is a fit case to quash First Information Report and criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as continuing criminal proceeding would be an exercise in futility.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and criminal proceeding against the petitioner under Crime No. 876/2005 registered under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC is hereby quashed.