Ragini Thakur v State of Punjab and another

Ragini Thakur v State of Punjab and another

Punjab And Haryana High Court 20 January 2012

Bench : Ritu Bahri

Where Reported : 2012 Indlaw PNH 4705

Case Digest

Subject: Criminal; Practice & Procedure Cr. Misc. No. M-5578 of 2011 (O & M)

The Judgment was delivered by: Ritu Bahri, J. 1.The present petition has been filed u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.342 dated 11.11.2008 under Sections 379/420/120-B of IPC and Section 63/68/68-A of Copy Right Act, 1957, registered at Police Station Division No. 4, Jalandhar (Pb.) and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2), entered between the parties. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the F.I.R was registered against the petitioner at the instance of respondent No. 2 alleging therein that the petitioner is relaying/transmitting paid channels of the complainant by stealing hijacking the channel signals of the complainant/respondent No. 2.

Thereafter the petitioner was arrested and was granted regular bail. petitioner and charges were framed under Sections 379/420 IPC only, vide order dated 08.10.2010 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar. 3. The matter was at the stage of the prosecution evidence when the compromise was effected between the parties with the intervention of respectable persons and common friends of both the parties.

As per the compromise, both the parties have no grudges against each other and they will reside peacefully in future and will not initiate legal action qua the past disputes and both the parties shall withdraw all types of litigations filed against each other pending before any Court. It has further been decided that both the parties will make statements before the competent Court of law.
The Complainant has also agreed to file an affidavit and appear personally before this Court to get the above-said case quashed. A copy of compromise deed is dated 01.02.2011. Affidavit of the complainant is also to the same effect. Copy of affidavit dated 02.02.2011. 4. Vide order dated 22.02.2011, parties were directed to appear before the trial Court for recording of their statement.
In compliance of the above order dated 22.02.2011, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar has submitted its report on 13.04.2011 verifying the contents of compromise. As per the report, statement of complainant-Joy Bir Singh Kataria has been recorded to the effect that he has effected the compromise with the intervention of respectable persons and common friends of both the parties. the accused/petitioner is also to the same effect. As per report, the compromise is held to be genuine.

5. This Court in F.I.R No. 264 dated 09.07.2009 under Sections 420/379/506 IPC and Section 63/67 of Copy Right Act, 1957 and S. 67 of Information and Technology Act, 2000 (S. 16 of Cable Network Restriction Act, 1955 added later) had an occasion to quash the F.I.R on 20.12.12010, in view of the law laid down by Hon\\\'ble the Supreme Court in 2003(4) SCC 675, B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another 2003 Indlaw SC 230.

6. Broad guidelines have been laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 2007 Indlaw PNH 44 for quashing the prosecution when parties entered into compromise.

The Full Bench has observed that this power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- \\\"26. In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, (1980)1 SCC 63 1979 Indlaw SC 620, Hon\\\'ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the essence of compromise in the following words :- \\\"The finest hour of justice arrived propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.\\\"

27. The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted by distorted perceptions and is not a slave to anything, except to the caution and circumspection, the standards of which the Court sets before it, in exercise of such plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it while donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of justice.

No embargo, be in the shape of S. 320(9) if the Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C. 28. 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 Cr.P.C.is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social emity and reduces 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 by exercising its powers u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases.

There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation. \\\"7. The ratio of the Full Bench judgment is a special reference which has been made to the offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide where the victim dies in the course of transaction would fall in the category where compounding may not be permitted.

Heinous offences like highway robbery, dacoity or a case involving clear-cut allegations of rape should also fall in the prohibited category. However, the offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide may be permitted to be compounded when the Court is in the position to record a finding that the settlement between the parties is voluntary and fair.
The Court must examine the cases of weaker and vulnerable victims with necessary caution. 8. The Hon\\\'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429 2008 Indlaw SC 507 has examined a case where quashing was sought of an FIR u/s. 406 IPC being non-compoundable.
The Hon\\\'ble Supreme Court has held that :-
\\\"1. No useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise - There was no possibility of conviction.
2 It is advisable that in the disputes where question involved is of purely personal nature and no public policy is involved - Court should ordinarily accept the compromise.
3. Keeping the matter alive with no possibility of conviction is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford.
\\\"9. Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon\\\'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008 Indlaw SC 507 (supra) and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another 2007 Indlaw PNH 44 (supra), FIR No.342 dated 11.11.2008 under Sections 379/420/120-B of IPC and Section 63/68/68-A of Copy Right Act, 1957, registered at Police Station Division No. 4, Jalandhar (Pb.) is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner.

Accordingly, the petitions stand disposed of.