GURSHARAN KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GURSHARAN Kaur and Surinder Singh have brought this petition for quashing of FIR No.243 dated 14.12.2000, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC (Annexure P/1) registered at Police Station Division No.4, Jalandhar, and the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar dated 17.01.2012 emanating therefrom on the basis of compromise. The petitioners along with few others were put to trial for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and after conducting a full -fledged trial, they were sentenced to various terms of punishment by the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.01.2012. The appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. While issuing notice of motion, learned appellate Court was directed to record the statements of the parties to find out if the compromise (Annexure P/3) is outcome of free consent of the parties and is without coercion. The report dated 07.05.2013 has been received from the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jalandhar wherein it has been stated that the compromise entered into between the parties is voluntary and without pressure and coercion. This position is not controverted on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to a judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case "Sube Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2013 (4) RCR (Criminal), 102 and judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "Dr.Arvind Barsaul etc. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another 2008(2) RCR (Criminal), 910 to contend that proceedings can be quashed after conviction of the accused by the trial court. Nothing to the contrary has been shown during the course of hearing. While issuing notice of motion, the learned lower appellate Court was asked to record statements of the parties concerned to find out if the compromise is outcome of free will and consent of the parties and is free from any undue influence/pressure/coercion. The learned lower appellate Court has submitted a report dated 07.05.2013, affirming that the compromise is outcome of free will and consent of the parties and is free from any undue influence/pressure/coercion.

(2.) THE Complainant/Victim also has no objection if the FIR and proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. From the above it is established that parties to the lis have resolved the inter se dispute amicably in order to live in peace and harmony. Reference may be made to a Five -Judges Bench decision of this Court in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR(Crl.) 1052:2007(3) PLR 439:2007(2) ILR (Punjab) 338:2007(3) AICLR 818:2007(4) CCR 280:2007(59) AIC 435:2007(4) CTC 769: 2007(4) KLT 245, wherein it has been held as under:

(3.) IT is anybody's guess that after the parties having entered into a compromise, possibility of the trial resulting into conviction of the accused is remote and bleak and that being so continuation of criminal proceedings would visit the accused with great oppression, prejudice and extreme injustice. Rather it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice, or say abuse of the process of the Court, if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue. Ends of justice would be met only if the criminal proceedings are put to an end because this would allow the parties to translate their desire to live in peace into reality. The only consideration for the compromise reached between the parties seems to be their desire to bury the hatchet for all times to come. The compromise is also found to be in the interest of public at large, for, it will add to the peace of the society and will promote peaceful co -existence. The Courts are bound to play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever -lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of the Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery