IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-30704 of 2010 Date of Decision:17.2.2011 Ramneesh Kumar and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. L.M. Gulati, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Gurveen H. Singh, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Mr. M.S. Sachdev, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 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.393 dated 8.10.2009 under Sections 448/454/379/323/506/34 IPC Police Station Division No.6 Jullunder District Jalandhar and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The FIR in question was registered at the behest of respondent No.2. However, the matter has been compromised due to the intervention of the respectable of the area. Compromise deed (Annexure P-2) has already been placed on record. On 10.12.2010, when the case was listed for hearing, The parties were present in the Court alongwith their respective counsel. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 had placed on record the affidavit of respondent No.2 authenticating the compromise. As per the said affidavit, respondent No.2 has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. CRM M-30704 of 2010 -2- Thereafter, on the said date, the following order was passed: “ Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.393 dated 8.10.2009 under Sections 448,454,379,323,506 and 34 IPC, Police Station Division No.6, Jullunder, District Jalandhar, registered at the instance of respondent No.2- Gurjit Singh on the basis of compromise. The FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by respondent No.2 under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. alleging that the house owned by Darshan Singh Anand was being trespassed and his articles were stolen and that Gurjit Singh was not permitted to look after the property entrusted to him by Darshan Singh Anand. The matter is stated to have been compromised. It appears from the record that the learned Magistrate without application of mind, on the basis of an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. had directed the registration of FIR. The complaint was filed by Gurjit Singh on behalf of Darshan Singh Anand. Now, the matter is stated to have been compromised between Darshan Singh Anand and the petitioners through the attorney. A perusal of the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. reflects that Darshan Singh Anand through GPA Gurjit Singh had originally submitted a complaint to the S.P. City, which was entrusted to SHO, Police Station Jalandhar through his complaint dated 18.12.2008 alleging that his house has been trespassed by Ramneesh CRM M-30704 of 2010 -3- Kumar etc. he being an NRI. The compromise, if any, has to be between Darshan Singh Anand and the petitioners. The matter is stated to have been compromised with Gurjit Singh, who claimed himself to be a special power of attorney holder of Darshan Singh Anand. In the case the matter is permitted to be compromised between the power of attorney holder of Darshan Singh Anand and the petitioners, the same cannot be said to be an adjudication on the basis of compromise between the actual parties. Gurjit Singh present in Court, is directed to place on record the original power of attorney authorizing him to file and compromise a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on behalf of Darshan Singh Anand and any power of attorney authorising him to compromise the matter with the petitioners, on the next date of hearing. Adjourned to 6.1.2011. Meanwhile, the Investigating Agency is directed to fairly investigate the matter and find out whether the matter has actually been compromised. The steps taken on the original complaint filed by Darshan Singh be also intimated. It is noted here that the above said steps are being taken by this Court in order to ascertain that the property of a third person is not usurped, in his absence, by a compromise of two other parties.” In pursuance to the same, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has placed on record Approval of Settlement given by Darshan Singh CRM M-30704 of 2010 -4- Anand submitting therein that he has given a Power of Attorney to Gurjit Singh Kohli son of S. Jagatjit Singh Kohli, resident of 63 Shakti Nagar Jalandhar and Gurjit Singh on his instructions had effected compromise with Ramneesh Kumar son of Krishan Dutt Sharma who is a tenant in his property, 18 link colony Oppo. Nari Niketon, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar, Punjab as per his approval and his wish. It is further submitted that as per said compromise, Ramneesh Kumar has already handed over pocession of the property to Sh. Gurjit Singh Kohli attorney on behalf of Darshan Singh. He has no objection if the compromise is taken to its logical end. Today, petitioner No.1 is present in the Court and got recorded his statement to the effect that the matter has been compromised and he is bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise. He further undertook to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in dispute, part of which is still in his possession. 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 CRM M-30704 of 2010 -5- 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, the affidavit of respondent No.2 stating that he has no objection if the FIR is quashed and Approval of Settlement given by the original owner, 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.393 dated 8.10.2009 under Sections 448/454/379/323/506/34 IPC Police Station Division No.6 Jullunder District Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 17.2.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE