The court has inherent powers to quash convictions based on compromise, considering the voluntariness of the settlement and the absence of public disturbance.

JUDGMENT :

Anoop Chitkara, J.

Seeking quashing of judgment of conviction dated 16.11.2018 passed by the trial Court, in which the appeal filed by the convicts is pending before the Sessions Court, the convicts, who have now entered into an out of Court compromise dated 12.10.2021 (Annexure P-3), have come up before this Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the complaint, captioned above and charges levelled therein and consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The petitioner has annexed a copy of impugned judgment dated 16.11.2018 as Annexure P-2. As per the contents of the said judgment, complainant Anant Jot Singh, respondent no.2 herein, had filed a complaint under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Tripuri, Patiala against accused nos.1 to 9 namely Vikas Bhardwaj, Rattandeep Kaur, Amandeep Kaur, Ajit Inder Singh, Sukhwinder Kaur, Mohan Bhardwaj, Sohan Lal, Babu Singh, Shavindeer Singh through his Special Power of Attorney holder Tajinder Singh Banga. The complainant owned a plot of land measuring 8 marlas, which he had purchased from Jaswant Singh vide sale deed dated 04.05.1990. Jaswant Singh had purchased the said plot from Ajit Inder Singh, accused no.4. The complainant was entered as owner in possession in the revenue records, as reflected in jamabandis for the year 1986-87 upto 2006-07 and he was also in actual and physical possession over the land. The complainant alleged that Vikas Bhardwaj, accused no.1, in connivance with land grabbers Rattandeep Kaur, Amandeep Kaur, Ajit Inder Singh and Mohan Bhardwaj i.e. accused Nos.2 to 4 and 6 respectively, took forcible possession of the land. Despite repeated requests to return the possession, they refused to do so. When his repeated requests failed to yield any result, the complainant filed a civil suit for possession in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala, which at the time of filing the complaint was stated to be pending. The complainant further alleged that accused no.1 Vikas Bhardwaj created/fabricated all sale deeds in connivance with other accused. After that, he took loan over the same from State Bank of Patiala and stopped paying the instalments. He claimed that now, the Bank will auction the plot to recover the amount. Further details are not relevant and it is suffice to say that lot of litigation and communications took place between the complainant and the accused.

3. The allegations against the present petitioner Sukhwinder Kaur were that she connived with other accused i.e. Rattandeep Kaur, Accused No.2 and Amandeep Kaur, Accused No.3 in order to create false sale deeds. The complainant further alleged that Rattandeep Kaur and Amandeep Kaur are real sisters, whereas Vikas Bhardwaj, accused no.1, is very close friend of real brother of Sukhwinder Kaur and hence, they were well known to each other and thereby, they managed to create false sale deeds. Based on such complaint, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class recorded preliminary evidence and summoned the accused to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B IPC.

4. After considering the pre-charge evidence, learned Magistrate found a prima facie case against the accused and framed charges against them and vide above captioned judgment, found Rattandeep Kaur accused No.2, Amandeep Kaur accused No.3, Ajit Inder Singh accused No.4 (since deceased) and Sukhwinder Kaur accused No.5 guilty of the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. All the accused were sentenced to undergo imprisonment as under:-