IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-30782 of 2010 Date of Decision:17.5.2011 Raman Deep Singh .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Ravinder Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. **** 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.368 dated 13.11.2007 under Sections 304-A,279,338,427 IPC Police Station City Kharar, District Mohali 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. Compromise deed (Annexure P-1) has already been placed on record to this effect. Vide order dated 15.10.2010, the trial Court was directed to record the statements of both the parties regarding the matter having been compromised and send a report to this Court. In pursuance to the same, report of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kharar, was received. However, after perusing CRM M-30782 of 2010 -2- the said report, this Court passed the following order on 11.2.2011: “Vide order dated 15.10.2010, the trial Court was directed to record the statement of both the parties regarding the matter having been compromised and send a report to this Court so that the same be considered in the light of the Full Bench Judgment rendered in the case of Kulwiner Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052. In pursuance to the same, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kharar, has submitted his report, stating therein, that the matter has been compromised. The said report is returned simply by recording the statement of Manjeet Singh alone. Gurmeet Singh is the deceased. It is pointed that Gurmeet Singh is survived by other legal heirs including his grown up children, his wife, parents. Whereas, the statements of those persons have not been recorded. The statement of Manjeet Singh alone was recorded. As such the said report is rejected and the matter is again sent back to the Court of SDJM, Kharar to record the statements of all the legal heirs of the deceased and thereafter, submit a report as to whether the said compromise is genuine or not.” In pursuance to the order dated 11.2.2011, report from CRM M-30782 of 2010 -3- the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kharar, has been received. As per the said report, the statements of the complainant as well as the legal heirs of the deceased have been recorded. It is further submitted that the Court is satisfied that the parties have reached upon a compromise voluntarily. Thus, there is no doubt that the matter has been compromised. 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 thewide 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 CRM M-30782 of 2010 -4- 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 report received from the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, 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. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.368 dated 13.11.2007 under Sections 304-A,279,338,427 IPC Police Station City Kharar, District Mohali and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 17.5.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE