Crl. Misc.No.M 2406 of 2010 # 1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAT AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc.No.M 2406 of 2010 Date of Decision:-23.09.2010 Kanwaljit Kaur & Another. ......Petitioners. Versus State of Punjab & Another. ......Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab for Respondents no.1 & 3. Ms. Seema Arora, Advocate for Respondent No.2. *** JASWANT SINGH, J. Present petition under section 482 Cr.PC is for quashing of FIR No.76 dated 19.5.2006 under Sections 418, 419, 426, 465, 466, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station City Gurdaspur and the proceedings consequent thereto on the basis of compromise dated 11.1.2010(Annexure P-2). Petitioner no.1 Kanwaljit Kaur is the 25 years old unmarried Nanad and petitioner no.2 is the mother-in-law of respondent no.2 Rajinder Kaur who had lodged a complaint before the court of learned MACT, Crl. Misc.No.M 2406 of 2010 # 2# Gurdaspur stating therein that the claim petition filed on behalf of all the three on account of the untimely death of her husband Niranjan Singh(son of petitioner no.2 & brother of petitioner no.1) in a motor vehicular accident was not signed by her. She however had admitted her signatures on the joint power of attorney. Hence the aforesaid FIR was registered. It is claimed that both the petitioners and respondent no.2 have since entered a compromise(Annexure P-2) and prayed that the aforesaid FIR and all the consequent proceedings thereto may be quashed. Upon notice, respondent no.2 has caused appearance and has been identified by her counsel Ms. Seema Arora, Advocate. Respondent no.2-Smt. Rajinder Kaur has admitted her signatures on the compromise deed dated 11.1.2010 as well as on reply filed by way of her affidavit dated 19.2.2010 respectively and admit the contents of the the compromise and her signatures thereon. Statement of respondent no.2-Smt. Rajinder Kaur has been recorded separately. It has been stated by the complainant that she has no objection if the aforesaid FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. Learned State Counsel is unable to raise any serious objection in view of the statement recorded in terms of the aforesaid compromise whereby the complainant is not willing to support the case of the prosecution as the dispute between the members of the same family has been amicably resolved. Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2003)4 SCC 675 B.S. Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Another has made it explicitly clear in para 15 of its judgment that the High Court in exercise of its inherent Crl. Misc.No.M 2406 of 2010 # 3# powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or effect the powers under Section 482 of the Code. A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has also held that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash an FIR disclosing the commission of non- compoundable offences. The relevant extracts read 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 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.” Hon'ble Apex Court in another case in J.T. 2008(9) S.C. 192 Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another while relying upon its decision in B.S. Joshi's case(supra) has also held that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of criminal proceedings and the continuance of the same after compromise between the parties would be a futile exercise. Similar views were expressed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abot v. State of Punjab 2008(4) SCC 582, the relevant extract of which is as under:- “We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in Crl. Misc.No.M 2406 of 2010 # 4# 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.” Keeping In view the above settled legal position and taking into account the fact that both the parties who are members of the same family have desired to live in peace and harmony and carry on with their lives without any ill will or rancour by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, it is evident that 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 the FIR in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.76 dated 19.5.2006 under Sections 418, 419, 426, 465, 466, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station City Gurdaspur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE 23rd September, 2010 Vinay