CRM No. M 6404 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 6404 of 2011 Date of decision: 07.04.2011 Vikas Kalra and others ........ Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Surinder Mohan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Lekh Raj Nandan, AAG, Haryana Mr. B R Rana, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 -.- 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. 389 dated 05.11.2009 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120- B IPC, P S Mujeshar, District Faridabad (Annexure P-2) which was got registered on the written complaint made by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 10.06.2010 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record CRM No. M 6404 of 2011 2 as Annexure P-2. In the present case, the respondent/complainants filed a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120-B IPC against the present petitioners in the Court of JMIC, Faridabad. Thereafter, the present FIR was lodged in Police Station, Mujeshar, District Faridabad. During investigation, the parties have settled the disputes by way of compromised. The factum of the compromise has been admitted by the complainant through an affidavit dated 10.06.2010. Today, Mr. B R Rana, Advocate, appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 4, has filed short replies on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 4 in Court. The same are taken on record. As per the said replies, all the disputes between the petitioners and respondents No. 2 to 4 have been amicably resolved and the complainants have no objection if the said FIR is quashed. In the present case, some property dispute led to filing of the present FIR. 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 CRM No. M 6404 of 2011 3 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 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 said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainants have no objection if the said FIR is quashed. Taking into account the allegations, compromise as well as short replies of the complainants, 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 above said settled proposition of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 389 dated 05.11.2009 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120-B IPC, P S Mujeshar, District Faridabad (Annexure P-2) and subsequent proceedings CRM No. M 6404 of 2011 4 arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 07.04.2011 mohan