The court emphasized the importance of accepting compromise in criminal proceedings for disputes of a purely personal nature, based on the absence of public policy involvement and the futility of continuing proceedings with no possibility of a result in favor of the prosecution.

ORDER :

Petitioner Shivcharan along with Shri Sanjay Bahirani, Advocate.

Respondent No. 1/State by Shri B. D. Mahore, P.P.

Complainant Anil Kumar Gupta along with Shri G. M. Soni, Advocate.

Learned counsel for the parties made a statement at bar that they personally know the petitioner and complainant and they have identified them.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 28-3-2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gwalior in Case No. 2912/08, whereby learned Magistrate rejected the application filed by the petitioner under section 320(2) of Criminal Procedure Code for compounding the offence on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties.

3. It is not in dispute that challan has been filed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under sections 406, 409, 420 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code. Before filing this application for compromise under section 320(2) of Criminal Procedure Code an application for discharge under section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code was filed which is pending for consideration before the trial Court. Out of sections 406, 409, 420 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, the offence under section 420 of Indian Penal Code is compoundable. In the present dispute the value of the property is more than Rs. 2000/- and therefore section 406 is also not compoundable.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Chanana and ors. vs. State of Haryana and anr., AIR 2008 SC 1968 and submitted that if compromise has been arrived between the complainant and the dispute which are purely personal in nature and arises due to transaction between them have been settled in terms of compromise arrived between them and therefore in the light of the said compromise it is unlikely that prosecution will succeed in the matter. The trial Court committed error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. The Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Chanana (supra) has held that the dispute is purely a personal and no public policy will involve in the transaction that had been entered between the parties, to continue with the proceedings, therefore would be futile exercise. With the aforesaid, the application of compromise was allowed. He also drew my attention in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 1969, in which the Apex Court has held that Court should ordinarily accept terms of compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution. Para 5 is relevant which reads as under :-

"It is on the basis of this compromise that the application was filed in the High Court for quashing of proceeding 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 technica