CRM No. M 16203 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 16203 of 2010 Date of decision: 27.05.2010 Lakhwinder Singh alias Teta and others ........ petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. K S Dhaliwal, Advocate for for the petitioners Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State Mr. Baljinder Singh Virk, Advocate for respondent No. 2 - complainant -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 205 dated 25.10.2009 (Annexure P1) under Sections 379, 341, 323, 34 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Tanda, District Hoshiarpur which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise having been arrived at between the parties. Complainant has also filed his affidavit dated 10.05.2010 which CRM No. M 16203 of 2010 2 has been placed on record as Annexure P-2, wherein, it is stated that with the intervention of the Village Panchayat and respectable the matter has been compromised and the complainant do not want to take any legal action against the petitioners. A separate statement to that effect has also been recorded. In the present case, a quarrel took place between the parties which resulted in filing of the present FIR against the present petitioners. Due to the intervention of the respectables of the village, the misunderstanding has now been resolved. In his affidavit (Annexure P-2), the complainant stated that the matter has been compromised and he do not want to take any legal action against the present petitioners. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another-2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has observed as under:- “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 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduced friction, then it truly is finest hour of justice. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the court exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.” The Apex Court in the case of 'Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of CRM No. M 16203 of 2010 3 Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:- “6. 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 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.” The present dispute is purely personal in nature and the compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed. Taking into account the allegations, affidavit as well as the statement of the complainant, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the settled proposition of law. Accordingly, the aforesaid FIR and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 27.05.2010 mohan