Crl. Misc. No.M-31168 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-31168 of 2009 Date of Decision: 11.03.2010 Bhoj Raj and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners. Respondent/complainant-Rajdeep Goyal, in person. 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) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No.91 dated 08.02.2007 under Sections 454 and 380 IPC at Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The FIR was registered on the statement of respondent No.2- Rajdeep Goyal, Advocate son of Sh. Shiv Kumar. The complainant Rajdeep Goyal is present in the Court and has filed his affidavit dated 11.03.2010. The same is taken on record. The matter has since been compromised. The compromise is also placed on record as P-2. As per the affidavit of the complainant-Rajdeep Goyal, the said compromise has been entered into between the parties without any fraud, fear or coercion and by Crl. Misc. No.M-31168 of 2009 2 his free will. It is further stated that he has no objection, if the said FIR and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties are quashed. As per the allegation in the FIR, the complainant rented out one shop to Pawan Kumar son of Sant Ram resident of Housing Board Colony, Bathinda and on 07.02.2007, the above said Pawan Kumar vacated the shop and took Rs.70,000/- in cash as compensation and gave the vacant possession of the shop to him. He kept his household things i.e. one cooler, two ceiling fans in the above said shop. On 08.02.2007, brothers of the above Pawan Kumar namely Bhoj Raj and Vinod Kumar son of Sant Ram resident of Housing Board Colony, Bathinda in connivance with each other broke the both locks of his shop at about 9.15 in the morning and misappropriated the abovesaid goods and entered in his shop and stolen all the goods. The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. 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 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.” Crl. Misc. No.M-31168 of 2009 3 In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. 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.” The allegation in the FIR is totally personal in nature. The matter has been compromised. In view of the well settled proposition of law, there is no impediment in the way of the Court to accept the said compromise and to quash the FIR for peace, harmony and thus allow the parties to move on in life. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 91 dated 08.02.2007 under Sections 454 and 380 IPC at Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 11.03.2010 JUDGE gurpreet