IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-22314 of 2010 Date of Decision:6.10.2010 Gurcharan Singh and another .... Petitiones Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. Rajeshwar 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.(Oral) Reply filed by the State is taken on record. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved for quashing of FIR No.50 dated 29.3.2010 under Sections 307/34 IPC and Section 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act Police Station Dhariwal, District Gurdaspur, Punjab 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 against the petitioners on the allegation that the petitioners had tried to kill him. However, the matter was stated to have been compromised. Compromise deed has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. Accordingly, notice of motion was issued and the parties were directed to be present in the Court. Today i.e. 6.10.2010, respondent No.2 is present in person along with his counsel. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 has placed on record the affidavit of respondent No.2 authenticating the compromise. As per the affidavit, respondent No.2 CRM M-22314 of 2010 -2- has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. It is further stated that the said compromise was entered into with the intervention of the respectable of the area. No doubt Sections 307 IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act have been attributed to the petitioners but it is a case of no injury. Normally, this Court would have had reservation while quashing FIR under Section 307 IPC. Nobody was injured in the incident. If there was any intention to kill, the shot should have hit someone. Surprisingly, no one was even injured. Obviously, the intention, if at all, was to scare them. Each case has to be dealt in the peculiar facts of the case. In view of these facts, there is no impediment in accepting the compromise. 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-22314 of 2010 -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.” Taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties vide compromise deed Annexure P-2, affidavit of respondent No.2 authenticating the compromise stating before the Court that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed, 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 as also on account of the facts that no injury has been caused in the said incident. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.50 dated 29.3.2010 under Sections 307/34 IPC and Section 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act Police Station Dhariwal, District Gurdaspur, Punjab and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the peculiar facts of the present case. 6.10.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE