IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-22568 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 17.11.2011 Indraj and others ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Haryana and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.P.R.Yadav, Advocate, for the petitiones. Mr.Raja Sharma, AAG, Haryana. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.185 dated 8.10.2008 registered under Sections 147, 148, 323, 447, 506 and 427 IPC at Police Station Ateli (Annexure P-9) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that during the pendency of the present petition, a compromise dated 11.9.2011 (Annexure P-13) has been entered into between the parties. As per the said compromise, the complainant and other injured i.e. respondents No.2 to 4 have no objection to the quashing of the FIR in the light of the compromise. On 22.9.2011, when the case was taken up for hearing, this Court had directed the parties to appear before the trial Court on 3.10.2011 and make their statements with regard to the compromise which has been entered into between them and also to the effect that they have no objection to the quashing of the FIR in the light of the compromise. The trial Crl.Misc.No.M-22568 of 2009 -2- Court was directed to record the statement of the parties and to submit the report. In compliance of the said order, report has been received from the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Narnaul dated 18.10.2011 which reads as follows:- “In compliance of above said report, I have the honour to submit my report which is as follows: That on 12.10.2011 both parties appeared before this court and suffered their respective statements. The complainant party suffered their joint statement and admitted the terms of compromise dated 11.9.2011 and also admitted that the compromise bears their signatures and the same was entered by them with their free consent and the compromise is in the interest of both the parties as well as to maintain peace and harmony between them. Similarly, all the accused also suffered their joint statement and they too have admitted the terms of the compromise and both the parties specifically deposed that they have entered into the compromise and the compromise is in the welfare of both parties. The certified copies of the statements recorded by both parties as well as copy of zimni order dated 12.10.2011 passed by this Court are being enclosed with the report. This is for your kind perusal and further necessary action, please.” Crl.Misc.No.M-22568 of 2009 -3- In the light of the above report, there is no doubt left that a compromise has indeed been entered into between the parties and in the light of the compromise the complainant and other injured have no objection to the quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. A Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, while discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non-compoundable offence(s), has held as under:- “28. 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 in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation. 29. The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion Crl.Misc.No.M-22568 of 2009 -4- 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.” In view of the aforementioned stand taken by the parties and having regard to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, 2003 (2) RCR (Crl.) 888 and a five Judges Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) Law Herald (P&H), 2225, the present petition is allowed; FIR No.185 dated 8.10.2008 registered under Sections 147, 148, 323, 447, 506 and 427 IPC at Police Station Ateli (Annexure P-9) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. November 17, 2011 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE