Pawan Kumar vs State of U.T. and Another

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.—The present petition has been filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the same FIR No. 4 dated 11.01.1994 (challan No. 610 of 1994) u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 477, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Mani Majra, Chandigarh and the consequent proceedings including the conviction of the Petitioner by the trial Court vide judgment dated 21.08.12006 on the basis of the compromise dated 12.02.1994 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-3.

Two challans (report u/s 173 Code of Criminal Procedure) were presented by the police against the Petitioner i.e. challan No. 615 of 1994 and 610 of 1994. This petition pertains to challan No. 610 of 1994. The Petitioner faced trial in the above said case and was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 21.08.2006 for offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC. The Petitioner, thereafter, filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence and the said appeal is pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. The dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent is basically a dispute relating to their relationship of landlord/tenant. The matter was compromised between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 after the registration of the above said FIR. The complainant/Respondent No. 2 had even admitted the factum of compromise in his cross examination before the trial Court during the course of trial. The parties to this petition are now enjoying cordial relations and there is no grievance in their minds against each other. Even the eviction petitions filed by the complainant were withdrawn on the basis of the compromise.

Complainant is present in Court along with his counsel and has filed his affidavit in Court today, stating therein, that he has no grouse or grievance against Pawan Kumar and has no objection if the said FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are quashed.

The Apex Court in he case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. 2008 (2) RCR 910 while quashing the FIR and all proceedings arising out of the same held that the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. In that case also, the Petitioners were convicted u/s 498-A of IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment of 18 months. An appeal was filed against the conviction order and during the pendency of the appeal, the parties had settled their differences. However, they filed petition before the High Court u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the complaint as well as conviction order on account of the compromise. The High Court dismissed the same. Aggrieved, they challenged the same before the Apex Court. The Apex Court accepted the compromise and quashed the FIR and all the proceedings arising out of the same as well as order of conviction.

This Court in the case of Sukhwinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. 2008(3) RCR 991, who relying upon the judgment of Khursheed and Anr. v. State of UP and Anr. 2007(4) CRC 495 allowed the Petitioners to compound the offence u/s 452 IPC during the pendency of the appeal.

The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and another- 2007(3) RCR 1052 has observed as under:

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 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduced 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 exercising its power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.

In view of the settled proposition of law and in view of the fact that the parties have compromised the matter, it would be in the interest of justice to accept the compromise and to allow the parties to live amicably which shall reduce the friction in the society and promote peace and harmony.

Accordingly, the parties are allowed to compound the offence. The parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Court where the appeal is pending. Thereafter, the appellate Court shall pass the appropriate orders in the light of permission having granted by this Court to the parties to compound the offence.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.