IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-909 of 2011 Date of Decision:21.3.2011 Bhupinder Singh .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. R.S. Raj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Respondent No.2 is present in person. **** 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) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.260 dated 9.9.2010 under Sections 420/465/467/468/471/201/120-B IPC Police Station Zirakpur 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. However, the matter has been compromised due to the intervention of the respectables of the area. A statement (Annexure P-2) of respondent No.2 made before the Court of Mrs. Kiran Bala, PCS, SDJM, Dera Bassi as well as an affidavit (Annexure P-3) have already been placed on record to this effect. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has also placed on record the affidavit of father of the petitioner. It is submitted in the said affidavit that they have paid a total amount of Rs.60,000/- towards CRM M-909 of 2011 -2- Rs.50,000/-taken by the petitioner as mentioned in the FIR i.e. Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest of Rs.10,000/-. Respondent No.2 is present in the Court and is duly identified by HC Rajinder Singh, who is also present in this alongwith the case file. Respondent No.2 got his statement recorded submitting therein that he has compromised the matter with the petitioner and as per the compromise he has received the amount of Rs.60,000/- taken by the petitioner as mentioned in the FIR i.e. Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest of Rs.10,000/-. It is further submitted that the said compromised was entered into without any pressure and out his own free will. He has no objection, if the FIR in question is quashed qua the petitioner only. However, it is further submitted by him that he has not compromised the matter with the others, who have also cheated him. This Court in the case of Parambir Singh Gill v. Malkiat Kaur reported as 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 256 quashed the proceedings against one of the accused on the basis of compromise, whereas proceedings against the other co-accused were allowed to continue. 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:- CRM M-909 of 2011 -3- “ 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.” 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 and the statement of respondent No.2 stating that he has no objection if the FIR is quashed qua the petitioner only, 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 qua the petitioner in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.260 dated 9.9.2010 under Sections 420/465/467/468/471/201/120-B IPC Police CRM M-909 of 2011 -4- Station Zirakpur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed only qua the petitioner. However, the proceedings against other accused shall continue. 21.3.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE