SHIV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER No. 1 is an Ex-serviceman having served the Nation for 20 years. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are his sons, whereas petitioner No. 4 is his wife. Petitioner No. 5 is sister-in-law of petitioner No. 1. They all are aggrieved against the FIR registered against them under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC at Police Station City, Rajpura and are seeking quashing of the same. The impugned FIR was lodged by respondent No. 2 Mela Singh, who is stated to be nephew of petitioner No. 2. It is alleged that petitioners No. 1 and 2 and others had approached one Ashwani Kumar, who claimed to be running an employment agency with good links in the foreign countries like U.S.A., U.K., Dubai etc. and where he could arrange job. Ashwani Kumar made promise to petitioners No. 1 and 2 and Jagmohan Singh son of respondent No. 2 for arranging of visa and job for them in foreign country. Petitioner No. 1 and Jagmohan Singh allegedly paid a sum of Rs. 4 lacs and Rs. 2 lacs respectively to Ashwani Kumar along with their passports for procuring visa and job for them. Ashwani Kumar, however, played a fraud with the petitioners and Jagmohan Singh. He took them to Kathmandu and Bombay on the pretext of sending them to USA. The fraud was detected when he could not fulfill his promise. Prayer for refund of the money was made and when Ashwani Kumar refused to refund the money, the relations between the petitioners and respondent No. 2 became strained. Petitioner No. 1 states to have complained to Deputy Commissioner of Police (South) New Delhi against Ashwani Kumar. He also filed a criminal complaint before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi leading to registration of FIR No. 578 of 2000 under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC against Ashwani Kumar, Babbu and Chhotu (brothers-in-laws of Ashwani Kumar and Sanjay and Manoj). Respondent No. 2, in these circumstances, felt aggrieved against the petitioners, who were his close relatives and ultimately filed a complaint before the police authorities against the petitioners with the allegation that the petitioners have taken Rs. 6 lacs from him for sending his son abroad. This led to registration of the impugned FIR.

(2.) RELYING upon the aforementioned facts, the petitioners have averred that in fact they have also been cheated and are victim of the circumstances. During the course of these proceedings, the compromise is effected between the petitioners and respondent No. 2 on the intervention of elders and respectables of the family. A sum of Rs. 4 lacs out of Rs. 6 lacs allegedly given by respondent No. 2 to the petitioners was earlier refunded and balance Rs. 2 lacs is also paid to respondent No. 2. On his part, respondent No. 2 has agreed to withdraw his complaint and not to press for further proceedings pursuant to the FIR registered at his instance. Copy of the affidavit of respondent No. 2 is annexed as Annexure P2.

(3.) IT may, however, require consideration if quashing of proceedings in a case registered under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC can be allowed on the basis of compromise. Offences revealed from the FIR are non-compoundable Counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to Dharampal Bajaj and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr., 2006(4) RCR(Criminal) 487 : 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 1004 whereby FIR under the same offences was ordered to be quashed on the basis of compromise. Counsel has also referred to Maninder Singh and another v. Union Territory Chandigarh and others, 2004(4) RCR(Criminal) 420 to urge that such a course can be adopted even in cases where FIR is for non-compoundable offences and these can be quashed on the basis of compromise. Reference in this regard may also be made to the judgment of Haji Nihal Ahmad and others v. State of U.P. and another, 1998(2) RCR(Criminal) 496 : 1998 Crl. L.J. 2082. In this case, the question whether a proceeding in a criminal case arising out of non-compoundable offences can be quashed came up for consideration. It was observed that even if the proceedings in such case are allowed to be tried by the Court, the ultimate result would be an acquittal as the complainant party was not likely to support the prosecution case. It was accordingly observed that trial in such a case would be an exercise in futility. It can be noticed that in a case where the parties have settled their differences and dispute though outside the Court, it would rather be unnecessary and unwarranted to continue with this trial which ultimately would be a fruitless exercise. In S.M. Jayaram v. State of Karnataka, 1976 Crl. L.J. 217, it was observed that after the parties had compromised among themselves, the Police had no business to file a charge-sheet etc. and to further represent that the case being under Section 379 IPC for theft can only be compounded with the permission of the Court.