IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-22918 of 2011 Date of Decision:15.2.2012 [ENTITY] and others Petitioners Versus [ENTITY] and others Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice [ENTITY] Present: Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. [ENTITY], D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? [ENTITY], J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed under [SECTION] [ACT] for quashing of FIR No.81 dated 18.8.2007 under [SECTION] [ACT] Police Station Division No.4, Ludhiana and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.
The FIR in question was got registered by respondent No.2. However, the matter has been compromised due to the intervention of the respectables of the area. Compromise deed (Annexure P-2) has also been placed on record in this regard.
Vide order dated 7.12.2011, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court on 3.1.2012 and the trial Court was directed to record the statement of all the affected parties and shall record a finding whether any volunteer compromise has been arrrived at between the parties or not. Report of the trial Court in this regard was also called for.
In pursuance to the same, report of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, has been received. As per the said report, the statements of the parties have been recorded recorded. It is further submitted that as per the statements of the parties, the Court is satisfied that volunteer compromise has been arrived at between the parties.
Thus, there is no doubt that the matter has been compromised. The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. [ENTITY] and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that the compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under [SECTION] of the [ACT] is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is "finest hour of justice". Disputes which have their genesis not only in matrimonial discord but others as well, such compromise deserves to be accepted. It is further held as under:-
" The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the [ACT] which can affect the inherent power of this Court under [SECTION]. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non- compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under [SECTION] of the [ACT] in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice."
In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. [ENTITY] 2008 (4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under:-
" We need to emphasise 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 utilised 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."
Taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties and report received from the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under [SECTION] [ACT] for quashing of FIR in the interest of justice.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.81 dated 18.8.2007 under [SECTION] [ACT] Police Station Division No.4, Ludhiana and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
15.2.2012 ( [ENTITY] ) [ENTITY] JUDGE