CRM M 13021 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- Date of decision: 25.05.2010 1. CRM M 13021 of 2010 Rakesh Kumar and others ........ petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) 2. CRM M 15554 of 2010 Baikunth Lal and ors ........ petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner and respondent No. 2 (CRM M 13021 of 2010) Mrs. G K Hundal, Advocate for the petitioner and respondent No. 2 (CRM M 15554 of 2010) Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent- State -.- 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) The aforementioned petitions have been filed for quashing of CRM M 13021 of 2010 2 FIR No. 13 dated 05.04.2010 under Section 452, 321, 341, 506 and Section 34 of Indian Penal Code Police Station Kathgarh, District S.B.S. Nagar as well as the counter version recorded in the aforesaid FIR and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. Copy of the compromise has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. Separate statements of Baikunth Lal and Rakesh Kumar to that effect have also been recorded. Brief facts of the case are that on a trivial issue, the dispute took place between the parties at the spur of the moment. Thereafter, Baikunth Lal-complainant (in CRM M 13021 of 2010) lodged a complaint which culminated into filing of the present FIR. But during investigation, on the statement made by Rakesh Kumar-complainant (in CRM M 1554 of 2010) a cross case was also registered against the aforesaid Baikunth Lal and others (petitioners in CRM M 15554 of 2010). Both the parties belong to the same village and also having their agricultural land adjacent to each other. Now, the with intervention of respectables of person of the Panchayat, the dispute between the parties was got resolved through compromise. Both the parties have decided not to pursue their cases. They have no objection if the present FIR as well as counter version recorded in the aforesaid FIR are quashed. The respondent-complainant Baikunth Lal has also filed his affidavit stating that he has no objection if FIR is quashed. Rakesh Kumar-respondent No. 2, in CRM M 15554 of 2010, has also filed his affidavit stating that the matter is 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 CRM M 13021 of 2010 3 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:- “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.” In view of the settled proposition of law, in the facts of the present case, it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to accept the compromise and exercise its inherent powers under CRM M 13021 of 2010 4 Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR in the interest of justice to promote peace and harmony. The compromise is entered into without any pressure. The parties are co-villagers. Accordingly, both these petitions are allowed and FIR No. 13 dated 05.04.2010 under Section 452, 321, 341, 506 and Section 34 of Indian Penal Code Police Station Kathgarh, District S.B.S. Nagar as well as the counter version given in the aforesaid FIR and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties are hereby quashed. A photo copy of the order be placed on the connected file. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 25.05.2010 mohan