Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 406 (PNJ)

Darshan Lal v. State Of Haryana

2002-04-12

V.M.JAIN

body2002
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482, CrPC filed by the accused-petitioners, seeking quashment, of FIR No. 109 dated 11.3.1995, registered under Sections 420/465/468/471/120B, IPC, on the basis of compromise, effected between the parties. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on the complaint of Smt. Viney Bala, complainant-respondent No. 2, the aforesaid FIR was registered in Police Station City Yamuna Nagar. In the said FIR, lodged by Smt. Viney Bala, it was alleged that they had bought one house in Model Town in the year 1991 and it was lying vacant for many days and many persons used to take it for holding functions and they used to give them for use. It was alleged that Smt. Sushma had illicit relations with her husband, Subhash Chander, for a long time, about which she (Viney Bala) had no knowledge. It was alleged that because of the illicit relations, Smt. Sushma and her husband, Darshan Lal had taken the said house from her husband, Subhash Chander. It was alleged that after 8-10 days, her husband, Subhash Chander, told Smt. Sushma and her husband Darshan Lal, to vacate the said house and go back to their own house, which was lying vacant, as his wife (Smt. Viney Bala) did not know that he had given the said house to them. It was alleged that they asked her husband that they may be allowed to continue staying in that house for sometime more, whereupon, her husband, in good faith, permitted them to do so. It was alleged that during the said period, the electric connection to the house was disconnected, whereupon, Smt. Sushma asked her husband for re-connection of the electricity. It was alleged that initially her husband declined the request, but lateron, Smt. Sushma, after making him to drink alcohol and by making sweet talks, told him that they would themselves obtain the re-connection. It was alleged that her husband used to go there everyday and he was made to drink alcohol everyday and whatever Smt. Sushma used to say to him, he used to do the same. It was alleged that one day, they brought a stamp-paper worth Rs. 3/- and obtained the signatures of her husband thereon. It was alleged that her husband used to go there everyday and he was made to drink alcohol everyday and whatever Smt. Sushma used to say to him, he used to do the same. It was alleged that one day, they brought a stamp-paper worth Rs. 3/- and obtained the signatures of her husband thereon. It was alleged that on another day, Smt. Sushma, after making her husband drunk and after misleading him with sweet talks, told him that they had prepared a file for electricity and he should sign on it so that they may get the electric re-connection and in the said file, they got the signatures of her husband on blank stamp-paper. It was alleged that on the said stamp-paper, they got typed an agreement of Rs. 3.75 lakhs. It was alleged that it was a total fraud and known to all. It was alleged that the house, in question, which was in her name (Viney Bala) and her husbands name (Subhash Chander), be got returned to them. 3. In the present petition under Section 482, CrPC, it was alleged by the accused-petitioners that a civil suit was also pending between the parties, involving the same questions of law and fact. It was alleged that the petitioners had filed a Criminal Misc 15942-M of 1995 in this Court, seeking the quashment of the said FIR, on the ground that the matter was of civil nature. It was alleged that after hearing both the sides, this Court had disposed of the said petition on 8.7.1996, directing the Judicial Magistrate to await the final decision of the civil suit, which was pending between the parties. It was alleged that now a compromise had been effected between the parties and all the disputes had been resolved between the parties, as per the compromise, Annexure P3. It was alleged that in pursuance of the said compromise, the petitioners had already withdrawn the civil suit, vide order dated 3.10.1996, copy Annexure P4. It was accordingly prayed that in view of the said compromise, the aforesaid FIR be quashed. 4. In the written reply, filed by Inspector Balbir Singh. It was alleged that in pursuance of the said compromise, the petitioners had already withdrawn the civil suit, vide order dated 3.10.1996, copy Annexure P4. It was accordingly prayed that in view of the said compromise, the aforesaid FIR be quashed. 4. In the written reply, filed by Inspector Balbir Singh. SHO, it was alleged that after the registration of the aforesaid FIR, the same was investigated by the Police and after the completion of the investigation, challan was filed against the petitioners in the Court in October, 1996, and the same was pending before the Judicial Magistrate. It was alleged that the investigation of the case revealed that the accused-petitioners had forged agreement to sell by obtaining the signatures of Subhash Chander on a stamp- paper fraudulently. It was alleged that in this manner, the accused- petitioners had committed the offence punishable under Sections 420/465/467/468/471/120B, IPC. It was further alleged that the launching of civil proceedings did not bar the criminal proceedings. In the written statement, filed by complainant-respondent No. 2. Smt. Viney Bala, it was alleged that the petitioners had not come to the Court with clean hands. It was alleged that the trial Court had already framed charges against the petitioners on 8.9.1998 and the petitioners, by misleading the Court, had obtained the stay order on 26.2.1999 to the effect that charge be not framed against the petitioners, even though the charge had already been framed on 8.9.1998. It was further alleged that the answering respondent had levelled specific allegations against the accused-petitioners in the FIR and after the investigation, the Police had submitted the final report and the charges had already been framed. It was further alleged that the answering respondent had compromised only the civil dispute and she had never compromised the criminal litigation, in pursuance of the present FIR. It was alleged that since there was no compromise regarding the FIR, there was no question of quashing the same on the basis of compromise. It was accordingly prayed that the petition be dismissed. 5. At the time of arguments, no one had put in appearance on behalf of the complainant-respondent No. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and have gone through the record carefully. 6. It was accordingly prayed that the petition be dismissed. 5. At the time of arguments, no one had put in appearance on behalf of the complainant-respondent No. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and have gone through the record carefully. 6. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submitted before me that in view of the compromise, copy Annexure P3, arrived at between the parties, the FIR, in question, be quashed. Reliance was placed on a judgment of this court, reported as Kuldeep Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000(4) RCR(Crl.) 767. Reliance was also placed on a judgment of Delhi High Court, reported as Deepak Bharadwarj v. State, 2001(2) RCR(Crl.) 549. 7. However, I find no force in these submissions of learned counsel for the accused-petitioners. 8. The FIR in this case was registered against the accused-petitioners for the offences under Sections 420/465/468/471/120B, IPC. After the investigation, challan was submitted in the court for the aforesaid offences. Under Section 320, CrPC, only the offence under Section 420, IPC, is compoundable with the permission of the Court. The remaining offences under Sections 465/467/468/471/120B, IPC, are non-compoundable. Under Section 320(9), CrPC, it has been provided that no offence shall be compounded, except as provided by the said Section. As referred to above, after the investigation, the challan had been submitted in the Court and the charges have already been framed. Previously, the accused petitioners had filed Criminal Misc 15942-M of 1995, seeking quashment of the aforesaid FIR. The said petition was disposed of by this Court on 8.7.1996, copy Annexure P2, in which it was directed that in the event of challan having been submitted after the completion of investigation, the trial of the criminal case shall await the final decision of the civil suit and that the civil suit, pending between the parties, shall be disposed of expeditiously. Annexure P4 is the copy of the order dated 3.10.1996, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri, vide which the civil suit, filed by Darshan Lal, against Subhash Chander, for specific performance of the agreement dated 5.7.1997, was dismissed as withdrawn, in view of the statement made by the plaintiff in the Court that he had compromised the matter with the defendant. 9. 9. In Surendra Nath Mohanty v. State of Orissa, 1999(2) RCR(Crl.) 683, it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that for compounding of offences, punishable under the IPC, complete scheme was provided under Section 320, CrPC. Sub- section (1) of Section 320, CrPC, provides that the offences, mentioned in the table, provided thereunder, can be compounded. As against this, sub-section (9) specifically provides that no offence shall be compounded, except as provided by that Section. It was held that in view of the aforesaid legislative mandate, only the offences, which are covered by table 1 or 2 (as given in Section 320, CrPC) can be compounded and the rest of the offences, punishable under the IPC, could not be compounded. Reliance was placed in the case reported as Ram Lal and anr. State of J&K, 2000(1) RCR (Crl.) 92 (SC) : JT 1999(1) SC 147. It was further held that the course adopted in two earlier judgments of the Honble Supreme Court i.e. Ram Pujan and ors. v. State of UP, 1972(2) SCC 456 and Mahesh Chand and anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 1988(1) RCR(Crl.) 498 (SC) : JT 1988(1) SCC 618, was not in accordance with law. 10. In view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Surender Nath Mohantys case (supra) and Ram Lal and anr.s case (supra), in my opinion, the FIR, in question, for the offences under Sections 465/467/468/120B, IPC, could not be quashed on the ground of compromise. This is especially so when the complainant, in the written statement, has contested the compromise in respect of the criminal case. The two authorities relied upon by learned counsel for the accused-petitioners, in my opinion, would have no application to the facts of the present case, in view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, in the above-mentioned authorities. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed.