http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  555 of 2008

PETITIONER: Madan Mohan Abbot

RESPONDENT: State of Punjab

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/03/2008

BENCH: TARUN CHATTERJEE & HARJIT SINGH BEDI

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T REPORTABLE

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 555/2008 (arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 4579/2006)

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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 bereft 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.