2008 JTR(SC) 541
2008 4 ADJ 199 ; 2008 2 AICLR 497 ; 2008 AIR(SC) 1969 ; 2008 AIR(SCW) 2287 ; 2008 2 ANJ(SC) 75 ; 2008 2 ApexCJ(SC) 65 ; 2008 2 APLJ 5 ; 2008 2 BLJR 1255 ; 2008 2 BomCR(Cri)(SC) 524 ; 2008 2 CriCC 57 ; 2008 CriLR 276 ; 2008 2 CriLR(Cal) 70 ; 2008 CrLJ 2243 ; 2008 3 KLT 19 ; 2008 3 MhLJ(Cri)(SC) 55 ; 2008 2 RCR(Cri) 429 ; 2008 4 Scale 159 ; 2008 4 SCC 582 ; 2008 2 SCC(Cri) 464 ; 2008 5 SCR 526 ; 2008 2 Supreme 750
2008(2) Supreme 750
Supreme Court of india
Tarun Chatterjee & Harjit singh Bedi, JJ.
Madan Mohan Abbot — Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab — Respondent
Appeal (crl.) 555 of 2008
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 4579/2006)
Decided on : 26-03-2008
important point
In disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings.
Act Referred :INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.379, S.506, S.418, S.406, S.34, S.409
(A) The impugned FIR was registered under Sections 379 (theft), 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust), 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant, banker, merchant, etc.), 418 (criminal trespass or concealment for the purpose of committing an offence punishable under Sections 379, 380 or 381), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention). The High Court declined to quash the FIR on the ground that Section 406 was non-compoundable when the amount involved exceeded Rs.250/- and because the case was already fixed for examination of prosecution witnesses. This appeal arises against that order, invoking the principles governing compromise and quashing of proceedings in criminal law.
(B) Key legal principles include: (i) a compromise between parties in a criminal case, particularly where the dispute is purely personal and devoid of public policy, may be a valid ground for the court to accept the terms and quash proceedings; (ii) the outer limit of monetary compounding under Section 406 is not determinative when the offence is non-compoundable, but the court may still exercise discretion to quash if the compromise resolves the dispute and the prosecution has no reasonable prospect of success; (iii) the death of the complainant may render a conviction unlikely and further justify cessation of proceedings; and (iv) the court must distinguish between compounding of an offence and quashing of proceedings, as they are not synonymous.
Facts of the case:
A First Information Report (FIR) No.155 dated 17th November 2001 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Amritsar, under Sections 379, 406, 409, 418 and 34/506 of the Indian Penal Code. A compromise deed executed on 25th January 2002 recorded that a dispute arising from extensive business dealings between the parties had been resolved, with the accused undertaking to cooperate to quash the FIR and the complainant expressing no objection to bail. The High Court declined the petition to quash the FIR, relying on the non-compoundability of Section 406 where the amount involved exceeded Rs.250/- and noting that the case was already fixed for examination of prosecution witnesses. A counter affidavit by the State contended that the investigating officer had no information about the compromise and that the case was ripe for recording evidence.
Findings of Court:
The court noted that the dispute was purely personal, arising from business dealings, with no public policy element. It observed that the compromise deed reflected a genuine resolution between the parties and that continuing the proceedings would serve no useful purpose, especially given the death of the complainant, which made a conviction unlikely. The court distinguished compounding from quashing and held that the outer limit of Rs.250/- was irrelevant in the context of quashing. It emphasized that courts, being overburdened, may accept a compromise in purely personal disputes to avoid futile litigation.
Issues:
Whether an FIR registered for offences under Sections 379, 406, 409, 418 and 34/506 of the Indian Penal Code can be quashed on the ground of a compromise between the parties, especially when the offence is deemed non-compoundable and the complainant has died, rendering prosecution unlikely to succeed.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that in cases involving purely personal disputes with no public policy implication, a genuine compromise between the parties, coupled with the death of the complainant and the resultant futility of prosecution, is a valid basis for quashing the FIR. The court must distinguish between compounding an offence and quashing proceedings, and the monetary threshold for compounding is not determinative when seeking to quash.
Result:
The appeal is allowed. The FIR No.155 dated 17th November 2001 and all proceedings connected therewith are deemed to be quashed.
(A) The impugned FIR was registered under Sections 379 (theft), 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust), 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant, banker, merchant, etc.), 418 (criminal trespass or concealment for the purpose of committing an offence punishable under Sections 379, 380 or 381), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention). The High Court declined to quash the FIR on the ground that Section 406 was non-compoundable when the amount involved exceeded Rs.250/- and because the case was already fixed for examination of prosecution witnesses. This appeal arises against that order, invoking the principles governing compromise and quashing of proceedings in criminal law.
(B) Key legal principles include: (i) a compromise between parties in a criminal case, particularly where the dispute is purely personal and devoid of public policy, may be a valid ground for the court to accept the terms and quash proceedings; (ii) the outer limit of monetary compounding under Section 406 is not determinative when the offence is non-compoundable, but the court may still exercise discretion to quash if the compromise resolves the dispute and the prosecution has no reasonable prospect of success; (iii) the death of the complainant may render a conviction unlikely and further justify cessation of proceedings; and (iv) the court must distinguish between compounding of an offence and quashing of proceedings, as they are not synonymous.
Facts of the case:
A First Information Report (FIR) No.155 dated 17th November 2001 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Amritsar, under Sections 379, 406, 409, 418 and 34/506 of the Indian Penal Code. A compromise deed executed on 25th January 2002 recorded that a dispute arising from extensive business dealings between the parties had been resolved, with the accused undertaking to cooperate to quash the FIR and the complainant expressing no objection to bail. The High Court declined the petition to quash the FIR, relying on the non-compoundability of Section 406 where the amount involved exceeded Rs.250/- and noting that the case was already fixed for examination of prosecution witnesses. A counter affidavit by the State contended that the investigating officer had no information about the compromise and that the case was ripe for recording evidence.
Findings of Court:
The court noted that the dispute was purely personal, arising from business dealings, with no public policy element. It observed that the compromise deed reflected a genuine resolution between the parties and that continuing the proceedings would serve no useful purpose, especially given the death of the complainant, which made a conviction unlikely. The court distinguished compounding from quashing and held that the outer limit of Rs.250/- was irrelevant in the context of quashing. It emphasized that courts, being overburdened, may accept a compromise in purely personal disputes to avoid futile litigation.
Issues:
Whether an FIR registered for offences under Sections 379, 406, 409, 418 and 34/506 of the Indian Penal Code can be quashed on the ground of a compromise between the parties, especially when the offence is deemed non-compoundable and the complainant has died, rendering prosecution unlikely to succeed.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that in cases involving purely personal disputes with no public policy implication, a genuine compromise between the parties, coupled with the death of the complainant and the resultant futility of prosecution, is a valid basis for quashing the FIR. The court must distinguish between compounding an offence and quashing proceedings, and the monetary threshold for compounding is not determinative when seeking to quash.
Result:
The appeal is allowed. The FIR No.155 dated 17th November 2001 and all proceedings connected therewith are deemed to be quashed.
judgment
Harjit Singh Bedi, J. —
1.Leave granted.
2.This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14th February 2006 whereby an application for quashing of FIR No.155 dated 17th November 2001 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Amritsar under Sections 379, 406, 409, 418, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code on account of the compromise entered into between the complainant and the accused, has been declined on the ground that Section 406 was not compoundable as the amount involved was more than Rs.250/- and that the case was already fixed on 28th April 2006 for the examination of the prosecution witnesses.
3.Notice was issued in this case on 21st August 2006 and the operation of the order was stayed in the meanwhile. A counter affidavit has been filed by the sole respondent i.e. State of Punjab and it has been pointed out, inter-alia, that the investigating officer had no information about the compromise between the parties, that the case was ripe for the recording of the prosecution evidence and that Section 406 was not compoundable as the amount involved was more than Rs. 250/-.
4.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Concededly a compromise deed has been executed between the parties on 25th January 2002 in which it has been inter-alia recorded as under :
“Whereas for the past some time some dispute had arisen in between both the parties regarding which first party has got an FIR No.155/2001 registered under Sections 379/406/409/418/34 of IPC in P.S. Kotwali Amritsar. After the registration of aforesaid criminal case a compromise has been arrived at in between both the parties. As a result of which both the parties have resolved their differences once for all. Now second party does not owe anything to the first party and first party has undertaken to cooperate with second party in every manner to get the aforesaid FIR cancelled/quashed from appropriate Forum. Further more first party has no objection if the Bail of second party be accepted. Rather first party shall cooperate with second party in every manner to secure bail for him. In view of the compromise arrived at in between the parties entire differences and tensions those had arisen in between both the parties stands resolved and both the parties have undertaken not to file any proceedings either civil or criminal or any other such like proceedings against one another in any court of law at Amritsar or any other place within or outside India. This compromise is hereby executed in between both the parties in the presence of marginal witnesses on this 25th day of January 2002 at Amritsar.”
5.It is on the basis of this compromise that the application was filed in the High Court for quashing of proceedings which has been dismissed by the impugned order. We notice from a reading of the FIR and the other documents on record that the dispute was purely a personal one between two contesting parties and that it arose out of extensive business dealings between them and that there was absolutely no public policy involved in the nature of the allegations made against the accused. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise and also in the light of the fact that the complainant has, on 11th January 2004, passed away and the possibility of a conviction being recorded has thus to be ruled out. We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and benefit of the technicalities of the law. We see from the impugned order that the learned Judge has confused a compounding of an offence with the quashing of proceedings. The outer limit of Rs.250/- which has led to the dismissal of the application is an irrelevant factor in the later case. We accordingly allow the appeal and in the peculiar facts of the case, direct that FIR No.155 dated 17th November 2001 P.S. Kotwali, Amritsar and all proceedings connected therewith shall be deemed to be quashed.
***********