Crl.M.No.21317-M OF 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.21317-M OF 2008 Date of Decision: 1.7.2010. Inderpal Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Yashpal Malik,DAG Haryana for respondent no.1 Mr.Shammi Khan,Advocate for respondent no.2-complainant. JASWANT SINGH, J Petitioners have approached this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR No.51 dated 6.2.2007 under Sections 406/420 IPC, registered at PS Ambala City and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P/2). At the outset, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the compromise Annexure P/2, inadvertently name of Kanwaljit Singh-petitioner no.3 has wrongly been spelt as Amarjit Singh s/o Saran Singh. This fact is not denied by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2-complainant. Complainant Arjun Singh Gill, who is present in Court has filed his affidavit dated 1.7.2010, in this regard, which Crl.M.No.21317-M OF 2008 2 is taken on record as Mark-A. Complainant has been duly identified by his counsel Mr.Shammi Khan,Advocate. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the compromise Annexure P/2. In the aforesaid compromise (Annexure P/2) it has been stated that the complainant has resolved differences with the petitoners amicably and as such does not want to proceed with the FIR in question. At the time of hearing also he candidly stated that he has no objection if the FIR in question and the subsequent proceedings in view of compromise Annexure P2 are quashed. A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash an FIR disclosing the commission of non- compoundable offences. The relevant extracts read 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 Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.” Similar views were expressed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abot v. State of Punjab 2008(4) SCC 582, the relevant extract of which is as under:- Crl.M.No.21317-M OF 2008 3 “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.” Keeping In view the above settled legal position and taking into account the fact that both the parties have desired to live in peace and harmony and carry on with their lives by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, it is evident that 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 the FIR in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.51 dated 6.2.2007 under Sections 406/420 IPC, registered at PS Ambala City and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. 1.7.2010. (JASWANT SINGH) joshi JUDGE