Amit Bansal and Anr v. State of Punjab and Anr

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 75 28.04.2023 Khanna City-2, District Khanna 406/420/120-B IPC The pe!!oners, arraigned as accused in the above cap!oned FIR, have come up before this Court under Sec!on 528 BNSS, 2023 for quashing of the FIR and all consequen!al proceedings based on the compromise with the aggrieved person(s).

¶2During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the accused and the aggrieved person(s) have compromised the maIer, and its copy is annexed with this pe!!on as Annexure P-4.

¶3ANer that, the pe!!oners came up before this Court to quash the FIR, impleading the aggrieved persons as respondent no.2.

¶4Pursuant to order of this Court dated 11.11.2024, the aggrieved person(s) (Respondent no.2), appeared before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna and stated that there would be no objec!on if the Court quashes this FIR and consequent proceedings. The relevant extract of the report of the concerned Court reads as follows: Name of the repor!ng Mr. Bhupinder MiIal, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 1

Criminal Case no. FIR No.75 dated 28.04.2023 under Sec!ons 406/420/120-B before trial Court IPC at PS - Khanna City-2, District Khanna

¶1Names of the complainant/ vic!ms(s)/ Dhalwant Singh aggrieved persons(s)

¶2Dates on which the statement(s) of the 16.11.2024 complainant/ vic!ms(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) were recorded

¶3Has the iden!ty of the complainant/ Yes vic!ms(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) been verified?

¶4Whether all the vic!ms/ all the Yes aggrieved persons have compromised the maIer?

¶5Is there pressure, threat, or coercion No upon the vic!m(s)/aggrieved person(s)/complainant?

¶6Names of the accused person(s) Amit Bansal and Reeta Rani

¶7Dates on which the statement(s) of the 16.11.2024 accused persons(s) recorded

¶8Whether all the accused have Yes compromised the maIer? If no, then the names of the accused who have compromised.

¶9Whether proclama!on proceedings No are pending against any accused?

¶10Has the police report been filed or No not?

¶11No!ce of accusa!on /Charges have No been framed or not?

¶12Sec!ons of statutes invoked in the 406/420/120-B IPC maIer

¶13Whether the court is sa!sfied with the Yes genuineness of the compromise? ANALYSIS & REASONING:

¶5Despite the severe opposi!on of the State's counsel to this compromise, the following aspects would be relevant to conclude this pe!!on: - a) The accused and the private respondent have amicably seIled the maIer between them in terms of the compromise deed and the statements recorded before the concerned Court; b) A perusal of the documents reveal that the seIlement has not been secured through coercion, threats, social boycoIs, bribes, or other dubious means; c) The aggrieved person has willingly consented to the nullifica!on of criminal proceedings; d) There is no objec!on from the private respondent in case present FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed; High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 2

e) In the given facts, the occurrence does not affect public peace or tranquillity, moral turpitude or harm the social and moral fabric of the society or involve maIers concerning public policy; f) The rejec!on of compromise may also lead to ill will. The pendency of trial affects career and happiness; g) There is nothing on the record to prima facie consider the accused as an unscrupulous, incorrigible, or professional offender; h) The purpose of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory in nature and to work to bring peace to family, community, and society;

i) The exercise of the inherent power for quashing FIR and all consequen!al proceedings is jus!fied to secure the ends of jus!ce.

¶6In the present case the offence under sec!on 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 are compoundable under Sec!on 320 CrPC, when all the other offences of IPC in the FIR are compoundable, then 120-B IPC also becomes compoundable.

¶7In C.B.I., New Delhi v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., CalcuIa, 1996(5) SCC 591, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [26]. ANer giving our careful considera!on to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the respec!ve counsel for the par!es, it appears to us that for the purpose of quashing the complaint, it is necessary to consider whether the allega!on in the complaint prima facie make out an offence or not. It is not necessary to scru!nise whether the allega!ons are likely to be upheld in the trial. Any ac!on by way of quashing the complaint is an ac!on to be taken at the threshold before evidences are led in support of the complaint. For quashing the complaint by way of ac!on at the threshold, it is, therefore, necessary to consider whether on the face of the allega!ons, a criminal offence is cons!tuted or not. [29]. In the facts of the case, it appears to us that there is enough jus!fica!on for the High Court to hold that the case was basically a maIer of civil dispute. The Banks had already filed suits for recovery of the dues of the Banks on account of credit facility and the said suits have been compromised on receiving the payments from the concerned Companies. Even if an offence of chea!ng is prima facie cons!tuted, such offence is a compoundable offence and compromise decrees passed in the suits ins!tuted by the Banks, for all intents and purposes, amount to compounding of the offence of chea!ng. It is also to be noted that long !me has elapsed since the complaint was filed in 1987. It may also be indicated that although such FIRs were filed in 1987 and 1989, the Banks have not chosen to ins!tute any case against the alleged erring officials despite allega!ons made against them in the FIRs. Considering that the inves!ga!ons had not been completed !ll 1991 even though there was no impediment to complete the inves!ga!ons and further inves!ga!ons are s!ll pending and also considering the fact that the claims of the Banks have been sa!sfied and the High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 3

suits ins!tuted by the Banks have been compromised on receiving payments, we do not think the said complaints should be pursued any further. In our view, proceeding further with the complaints will not be expedient. In the special facts of the case, it appears to us that the decision of the High Court in quashing the complaints does not warrant any interference under Ar!cle 136 of the Cons!tu!on. We, therefore, dismiss these appeals.

¶8In Nikhil Merchant vs C.B.I. & Anr, Cr.A 1302 of 2008, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [22]. Despite the ingredients and the factual content of an offence of chea!ng punishable under Sec!on 420 IPC, the same has been made compoundable under Sub-sec!on (2) of Sec!on 320 Cr.P.C. with the leave of the Court. Of course, forgery has not been included as one of the compoundable offences, but it is in such cases that the principle enunciated in B.S. Joshi's case (supra) becomes relevant. [23]. In the instant case, the disputes between the Company and the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromise arrived at by them whereunder the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not appear to have any further claim against the Company. What, however, remains is the fact that certain documents were alleged to have been created by the appellant herein in order to avail of credit facili!es beyond the limit to which the Company was en!tled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facets. The ques!on which is required to be answered in this case is whether the power which independently lies with this Court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised? [24]. On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in B.S. Joshi's case (supra) and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filed by the Bank, we are sa!sfied that this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the con!nuance of the same aNer the compromise arrived at between the par!es would be a fu!le exercise.

¶9In Shakuntala Sawhney v Kaushalya Sawhney, (1979) 3 SCR 639, at P 642, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the finest hour of Jus!ce arises propi!ously when par!es, who fell apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship or reunion.

¶10In the light of the judicial precedents referred to above, given the terms of compromise, placement of par!es, and other factors peculiar to the case, the contents of the compromise deed and its objec!ves point towards its acceptance. High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 4

¶11In Himachal Pradesh Cricket Associa!on v State of Himachal Pradesh, 2018:INSC:1039 [Para 47], 2018 (4) Crimes 324, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds "[47]. As far as Writ Pe!!on (Criminal) No. 135 of 2017 is concerned, the appellants came to this Court challenging the order of cognizance only because of the reason that maIer was already pending as the appellants had filed the Special Leave Pe!!ons against the order of the High Court rejec!ng their pe!!on for quashing of the FIR/Chargesheet. Having regard to these peculiar facts, writ pe!!on has also been entertained. In any case, once we hold that FIR needs to be quashed, order of cognizance would automa!cally stands vi!ated."

¶12Considering the en!re facts, compromise, and in the light of the above-men!oned judicial precedents, I believe that con!nuing these proceedings will not suffice any fruiSul purpose whatsoever. In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the Court invokes the inherent jurisdic!on under sec!on 528 BNSS, 2023 and quashes the FIR and all subsequent proceedings qua the pe!!oners. The bail bonds of the pe!!oners are accordingly discharged. Petition allowed in the terms mentioned above. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

13.12.2024 Jyo! Sharma High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 09.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 13.12.2024 Amit Bansal and another ... Pe!!oners Versus State of Punjab and another …Respondent (s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present:- Ms. Livleen Brar, Advocate for the pe!!oners. Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab. Ms. Sukri! Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***