Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1027 (PNJ)

Sarabjeet Singh v. State Of Punjab

2007-05-01

RANJIT SINGH

body2007
Judgment Ranjit Singh, J. 1. The petitioners, accused in FIR No. 223 dated 4.12.2001 under Section 420/34 IPC, have filed this petition for quashing of said FIR on the basis of compromise reached with respondent No. 2, the complainant in this case. 2. The FIR lodged by respondent No. 2 contains allegations that the petitioners alongwith their co-accused had come to his house and spoke about sending complainants son abroad. His son was asked to arrange Rs. Four lacs, for which he had approached the complainant, whereupon, the complainant arranged the money by selling his property. Allegation is that that Tarlok Nath took Rs. 1 lac from the complainant and Rs. 3,07,000/- was paid to Paramjit Singh and Kulwinder Kaur @ Kinder wife of Paramjit Singh, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. They had assured the complainant that money is in their safe custody till son of the complainant reached Italy. It is disclosed that his son was sent to Moscow instead of Italy. The complainant, on coming to know about this, approached the petitioners and their co-accused and asked for refund of the amount. When the complainant did so, petitioner, Paramjit Singh, told him that he was proceeding to Canada and his brother-in-law, Sarabjit Singh, would be responsible in this regard. When the complainant found that the accused persons were making false excuses, he lodged the present FIR. 3. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have resolved their disputes and differences on intervention of the respectable and common relatives. A written compromise reduced into writing in this regard in the form of an affidavit has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. The complainant has deposed in this affidavit that now nothing is to be recovered from the present petitioners in view of the settlement of accounts and as such, he would not wish to pursue the proceedings against them in the present FIR. 4. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents. Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate, has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2, who is also present in Court in person as well. 5. At the outset, counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the matter is compromised between the parties and as such, respondent No. 2 would not have any objection if the present FIR qua the petitioners is ordered to be quashed. 5. At the outset, counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the matter is compromised between the parties and as such, respondent No. 2 would not have any objection if the present FIR qua the petitioners is ordered to be quashed. Respondent No. 2, has made a statement before the Court that the issue in regard to payment of money has been resolved between him and the petitioners and he has been paid a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/-, receipt of which he has confirmed before the Court. 6. Based on the above noted facts, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no useful purpose will be served in allowing the present proceedings to continue against the petitioners since they have settled the issue with the complainant-respondent No. 2. To overcome the difficulty of quashing of proceedings on the basis of compromise in non-compoundable offence, counsel would draw my attention to order, Annexure P-2 to say that proceedings under Section 420 IPC were ordered to be quashed on the basis of a compromise. The Full Bench of this Court reported as Dharambir v. State of Haryana, 2005(3) RCR(Criminal) 426, has held that the criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial dispute can be ordered to be quashed. It, however, has not fully fore-closed the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in an appropriate case. This can be noticed from the observations of the Bench in this regard, which are as follows : "12......... The balance in each case will have to be struck to ensure that complete justice is done between the parties and for achieving this, each individual case will have to be scrutinised to find out whether it attracts any of the provisions incorporated in Section 482 of the Code to impel the Court to grant relief to a party either in the exercise of the aforesaid power or under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, we would not like to launch an exercise for determining the scope of judicial intervention as provided under Section 482 of the Code in view of the terms "abuse of the process of law" and "in the interest of justice", as it would not be proper for us to provide a straightjacket formula for channelising judicial responses to the facts and the circumstances of a given case. It would be more appropriate that the interpretation of these terms is left open to the response of an Honble Judge to the facts and circumstances of a given case, as and when this Court is called upon to intervene in any matter for preventing the abuse of the process of law and advancing the ends of justice." 7. It is, thus, clear that the Honble Full Bench clearly left it to the discretion of the Judge to decide in each case to intervene under Section 482 Cr.P.C. depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case to see if quashing of the proceedings could be ordered in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice and to avoid abuse of process of the Court. Since respondent No. 2 has settled the dispute with the petitioners, he is not likely to support the case of the prosecution. The proceedings, if allowed to continue against the petitioners, would be an exercise in futility. Accordingly, no useful purpose is likely to be served in allowing these proceedings to continue. This petition is as such allowed and FIR No. 223 dated 4.12.2001 under Sections 420/34 IPC registered at Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana, and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners. It is made clear that proceedings against other accused would continue.