CRM No. M 37718 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 37718 of 2010 Date of decision: 09.02.2011 Pooja and others ........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. P K Longia, Advocate for the petitioners Ms Gurveen H Singh, Addl. A G, Punjab Mr. B S Sahoha, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 -.- 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. 14 dated 17.01.2009 under Sections 363-A, 368, 370, 120-B IPC, P S Shimlapuri, District Ludhiana which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 18.12.2010 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. Vide order dated 22.12.2010, the parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 04.01.2011. The trial Court was CRM No. M 37718 of 2010 2 also directed to record a finding whether any volunteered compromise has been arrived at between the parties. Report, in that regard ,was also called for. In pursuance to the same, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, vide letter dated 27.01.2011, has submitted his report, stating therein, that Complainant - Ramesh Kumar and his wife Anita and accused persons appeared before him and suffered separate statements with regard to compromise effected between them. It is also stated that the parties has arrived at a compromise voluntarily with the accused. From the above, it is clear that the compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine one. 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 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:- CRM No. M 37718 of 2010 3 “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 complainant as well as his wife Anita have no objection if the said FIR is quashed. Taking into account the allegations, compromise dated 18.12.2010 as well as the report of the trial Court, verifying the genuineness of the said compromise, 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. 14 dated 17.01.2009 under Sections 363-A, 368, 370, 120-B IPC, P S Shimlapuri, District Ludhiana and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 09.02.2011 mohan