- (1.) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 108 dated 26.09.2011 under Sections 420/406/120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the Code') and 24 of Immigration Act, registered at Police Station Mataur, District S.A.S Nagar, Mohali (Annexure P- 1) on the basis of compromise dated 15.11.2011 (Annexure P-2). Brief facts of the case are that petitioners had taken Rs. 1,10,000/- from respondent No. 2 for sending him abroad but they did not send him abroad nor gave back his money. They gave bounced cheques and they had left their office. In the above background, respondent No. 2 lodged F.I.R against the petitioners.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-complainant has referred to compromise effected between the parties with the intervention of respectable of the locality. As per compromise, petitioners had given Rs. 50,000/- to respondent No.2 and it was further decided that petitioners will given remaining amount i.e Rs. 60,000/- to respondent No. 2 at the time of quashing of F.I.R. Learned counsel for the petitioners has paid the remaining amount i.e Rs. 60,000/- in the Court today to learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2. This payment has been duly accepted and nothing is due now against the petitioners. The compromise is voluntary and without any pressure. As per compromise (Annexure P-2), both the parties have settled the dispute amicably as per the conditions recorded in the compromise. Counsel for the respondent No.2 does not dispute the genuineness of the compromise (Annexure P-2) annexed with the petition.
(3.) 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(Cri) 1052for 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, 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 Section 320(9) if the Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 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 under Section 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 under Section 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.";