Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1372 (PNJ)

Brij Mohan v. State Of Punjab

2001-12-06

V.M.JAIN

body2001
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr.PC, filed by the accused-petitioners, seeking quashment of FIR 176 dated 10.12.1997 under Sections 419/465/467/468/420/471/120B, IPC, registered in Police Station, West-8, Jalandhar, on the basis of compromise. 2. The aforesaid FIR was registered on the complaint submitted by Satish Kumar Dhiman to the SSP, Jalandhar, in which it was alleged that a forged and fabricated agreement to sell was made the basis for the notice dated 2.12.1997, served by accused-petitioner, Kulbhushan, calling upon the complainant to pay Rs. 5.00 lacs. It was alleged that as per the said notice, the said agreement to sell dated 20.4.1997 was executed by the complainant. It was alleged that infact the complainant had not executed any agreement dated 20.4.1997 in favour of accused-petitioner, Kulbhushan, and that Rakesh Kumar Marwaha and Brij Kumar Marwaha, accused had joined hands with said Kulbhushan and had conspired to harass the complainant and had forged the agreement to sell dated 20.4.1997. It was alleged that the complainant had neither executed the said agreement nor received any amount nor issued any receipt and that infact, he had nothing to do with said Kulbhushan and the complainant had never negotiated for the sale of the property, in question. It was further alleged that the accused-persons were liable to be prosecuted for the offences of cheating, fraud, impersonation, forgery etc. 3. In the present petition, it was alleged that after registration of the aforesaid FIR, the matter had been compromised between the parties, vide compromise, copy Annexure P2, and the FIR, in question, be quashed. It was further alleged in the said petition that the prosecution evidence had not so far been recorded and the case was fixed for 7.2.2002 for prosecution evidence. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the record carefully. 5. As referred to above, the FIR, in question, was registered on 10.12.1997, on the basis of the complaint, copy Annexure P1, submitted by Satish Kumar Dhiman, complainant, to the SSP, Jalandhar. In the said complaint, serious allegations of forgery, fraud, cheating and impersonation, etc. had been levelled by the complainant against the accused-petitioners. After the investigation was completed, challan was submitted in the Court. Thereafter, various charges were framed against the accused-petitioners and as admitted by the accused-petitioners themselves in the present petition, the case was at the stage of prosecution evidence. had been levelled by the complainant against the accused-petitioners. After the investigation was completed, challan was submitted in the Court. Thereafter, various charges were framed against the accused-petitioners and as admitted by the accused-petitioners themselves in the present petition, the case was at the stage of prosecution evidence. 6. Annexure P2 is the copy of the alleged agreement arrived at between the parties. As per the said agreement, no agreement was entered into between the parties on 20.4.1997 and that since the parties had entered into a compromise, it was agreed to between the parties that the criminal case be withdrawn. 7. As referred to above, the FIR is for the offences under Sections 419/465/467/468/420/471/120B, IPC. Under Section 320, CrPC (which provides for the compounding of offences), the offences under Sections 419/420, IPC, are punishable with the permission of the Court. However, the offences under Sections 465/467/468/471, IPC, are not compoundable even with the permission of the Court. Under Section 320(9), CrPC, it is provided that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by the said Section. 8. In Ram Lal and anr. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, 1999 SCC (Cr) 123 : 2000(1) RCR(Crl.) 92 (SC), it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that an offence which the law declares to be non-compoundable, even with the permission of the Court, could not be compounded at all. In the reported case, the offence was under Section 326 IPC, and was admittedly non- compoundable and the Honble Supreme Court had declined to accede to the request of the accused to permit the same to be compounded. 9. With regard to the two earlier judgments of the Honble Supreme Court referred as V. Suresh Babu v. State of AP, JT 1987(2) SC 361 and Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 1991 SCC (Cr) 159, it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that those decisions were rendered per incuriam. Similarly, in Surinder Nath Mohunty and anr v. State of Orissa, 1999(2) RCR(Crl.) 683 : 1999 SCC (Cr) 998, it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that for compounding of the offences, punishable under the IPC a complete scheme was provided under Section 320 of the CrPC, and that sub-section (9) specifically provided that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by the said Section. It was further held in the said authority that only the offences, which were covered by Table 1 or Table 2 (of section 320) could be compounded and the rest of the offences, punishable under the IPC, could not be compounded. Reliance was placed on the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Ram Lals case (supra). It was further held in the said authority that the course adopted in the cases Ram Poojan v. State of UP, 1973 SCC (Cr.) 870 and Mahesh Chands case (supra) was not in accordance with law. In respect of the case Y. Suresh Babu v. State of AP (supra), it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that in the said authority, it was specifically observed that the said case shall not be treated as a precedent. It was further held by the Honble Supreme Court that Mahesh Chands case (supra) and Y. Suresh Babus case (supra) were based on facts and that in no set of circumstances, these could be treated as per incuriam, as pointed attention of the Court to sub-section (9) of Section 320, CrPC, was not drawn. In this reported case as well, the parties wanted to compound the offence under Section 326, IPC. 10. In Sarabjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000(1) RCR 696, the accused had filed a petition under Section 482, CrPC, in this Court, seeking the quashment of the FIR for the offences under Sections 452/407/506/323/148/149, IPC, on the ground of compromise. After considering that the offence under Section 452, IPC, was not compoundable, even with the permission of the Court, the petition was dismissed by this Court. 11. In the present case as referred to above, only the offences under Sections 419/420, IPC, are compoundable under Section 320, Cr.PC. So far as the other offences are concerned, namely, the offences under Sections 465/467/468/471, IPC, these offences are not compoundable, even with the permission of the Court. Under Section 320(9), CrPC there is a specific bar for compounding the offences other than those, which are provided under Section 320, CrPC. Furthermore, the Honble Supreme Court, in the cases referred to above, has also specifically held that those cases, which are not covered under Section 320, CrPC, cannot be compounded. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed.