Advocates:
VIKAS MEHTAKULDIP SINGH

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