IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-28173 of 2009 Date of Decision:18.1.2010 Satnam Singh and another .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. K.S. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. Jagmeet Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 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? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved for quashing of FIR No.83 dated 19.04.2005 registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC at Police Station Dhuri, District Sangrur and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. As per the allegations made in the FIR, the petitioners had forged the signature of the complainant on an affidavit and on the basis of said affidavit, the electric connection was got transferred in their own name. Now, the matter has been compromised between the parties on the intervention of respectable of the village and the same has been amicably settled between them. The complainant has no grudge or enmity against the petitioners. The affidavit of the complainant has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. Vide order dated 12.11.2009, petitioners and respondent No.2 were directed to appear before the trial court and further trial court was CRM M-28173 of 2009 -2- directed to record their statements and sent its report regarding genuineness of compromise. In compliance of the aforesaid order, report from the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) dated 19.12.2009 has been received. As per the said report, the statements of the parties were recorded in the Court which are voluntary in nature and they have made the same without any pressure. It is also submitted that they have entered into compromise in order to maintain good relations. It is apparent from the perusal of the FIR that dispute is totally personal in nature. Even otherwise, the matter has since been compromised and the statement of the complainant duly made before the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) has also been placed on record submitting therein that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. 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 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 482 of the Cr.P.C. 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 Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. 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 CRM M-28173 of 2009 -3- Section 320 of the Cr.P.C in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.” In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 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.” The matter has been compromised. The dispute is personal. In view of the settled position of law, it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR in the interest of justice to promote peace and harmony. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.83 dated 19.04.2005 registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC at Police Station Dhuri, District Sangrur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. 18.1.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE