Mohinder Kumar vs State of Punjab

P.K. Jain, J.

This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing Criminal Misc. No. 7533M of 1996 and Criminal Misc. No. 7535M of 1996 as both these petitions are between same parties and a common question of law is involved therein.

Criminal Misc. No. 7533M of 1996 has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ''the Code'') for quashing First Information Report No. 8 dated 23.1.1995, registered at Police Station Division No. 6, Ludhiana for offences under sections 406/409 IPC and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom.

Criminal Misc. No. 7535M of 1996 has been filed under section 482 of the Code for quashing First information Report No. 241 dated 25.12.1994, registered at Police Station Kotwali Barnala for the offences under Sections 420 and 506 I.P.C. and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom.

The necessary facts for the disposal of these petitions are that respondent No. 2 company is carrying on the business of manufacturing of cotton yarn at village Sanghera, Tehsil Barnala district Sangrur with its Head Office at Ludhiana. The petitioner is carrying on his business as sole proprietor under the name and style of M/s Jewan Ram Ganpat Rai at Delhi. The respondent company had appointed the petitioner as its agent at Delhi to obtain orders from the customers on behalf of the respondent company, and also to collect payment on account of sale/supply of goods by the respondent company to its various customers, at Delhi. According to the allegations in FIR No. 8 dated 23.8.1995, the respondent company supplied goods worth Rs. 35372050 to M/s Jersey India Limited, Delhi and the petitioner collected the two amounts of Rs. 756600/ and Rs. 656250/ by means of two cheques dated 26.4.1994 and 12.9.1994 from M/s Jersey India Limited for an on behalf of the respondent company but did not account for the same to the respondent company at its Head Office and dishonestly misappropriated the same. On a written complaint made by respondent No. 2 company, the impugned FIR No. 8 was registered on 23.1.1995 at Police Station Division No. 6 Ludhiana.

According to the allegations in FIR No. 241 dated 25.12.1994, the respondent company supplied cotton yarn worth Rs. 37,85,460.20 to the petitioner and the latter handed over post, dated cheque No. 446265 dated 15.10.1994 to the respondent company towards the price of the said cotton yarn with the assurance that this cheque would be honoured on presentation. However, the cheque was dishosoured on presentation on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of the petitioner. When demand was raised, the petitioner alongwith his sons and three persons came to the office of the respondent company and extended threat to Shri Balwinder Singh, an officer of the respondent company. Therefore, on a written complaint by the respondent company, FIR No. 241 dated 25.12.1994 has been registered at Police Station Kotwali Barnala for offences under sections 506/420 IPC against the petitioners.

It has been stated in both these petitions that all the disputes between the parties have been mutually settled under a written compromise dated 15.4.1996 (Annexure P2) and no dispute on any account remains outstanding concerning both the aforesaid F.I.Rs. Since the offence under section 406/409 I.P.C. is not compoundable even with the permission of the court, the petitioner has approached this court under section 482 of the Code. The offence under Section 420 I.P.C. is compoundable with the permission of the court and prayer has been made that since the dispute has been compromised mutually, this court may quash the First Information Reports and the consequent proceedings in pursuance thereof.

Notice of both these petitions was issued to the respondents. The respondent company has admitted that the matter has been compromised between the parties vide compromise dated 15.4.1996 (Annexure P.2) and no dispute or difference concerning these two F.I.Rs remains outstanding between them and the respondent company has no objection if both these F.I.Rs and the consequent proceedings in pursuance thereof are quashed. However, the State has opposed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

It cannot be disputed that the High Court has inherent powers to pass orders under the Code to secure the ends of justice. Hence, if it comes to the knowledge of the High Court that in recording the compromise of the case, ends of justice would be secured, it is essential to pass such orders. It may be further noted that even otherwise, not to allow compromise may also result in such circumstances leading to the same result because the complainant in that case would not support the prosecution story, and the Court instead of advancing the cause of justice, would encourage perjury and if that is not done at trial, evil thoughts will again start in the minds of the parties for having another innings of battle.

The Apex Court had allowed the parties to compound the offences under Section 326 I.P.C. and Section 307 I.P.C. in Y. Suresh Babu v. State of A.P. and another, JT 1987(2) S.C. 361 and Mahesh Chand and another v. State of Rajasthan A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 2111, both the offences under sections 326/307 I.P.C. are not compoundable even with the permission of the court. Similarly in Criminal Misc. 11690M of 1995 Mohinder Singh Khosla and others v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and another decided on 1.11.1995, 1996(1) Recent Criminal Reports 120 this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Code had quashed the First Information Report for an offence which was not compoundable even with the permission of the court. A similar view has been expressed by this Court in Satwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others 1996(4) Recent Criminal Cases 21.

In the present case, the parties have entered into a compromise vide deed dated 15.4.1996 (Annexure P2). No useful purpose would be served if the investigation of the F.I.Rs. in question is allowed to be carried on or chargesheet is allowed to be filed or if the petitioner/petitioners are required to face the trial inasmuch as the complainant would not support the prosecution in view of the compromise (Annexure P.2). In these circumstances further proceedings in the F.I.Rs. would be an exercise in futility which ought to be avoided.

As a result of the above discussion, I accept both these petitions and hereby quash both the impugned F.I.Rs bearing No. 8 dated 23.1.1995 registered at Police Station Division No. 6, Ludhiana for offences under Sections 406/409 I.P.C. and F.I.R. No. 241 dated 25.12.1994 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Barnala for the offences under sections 420/506 I.P.C. and all the consequent and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.