Crl.M.No.21005-M of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.21005-M of 2010 Date of order: 27.9.2010 Meena Kumari and others ....Petitioners vs. State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Addl.A.G, Haryana for for respondent No.1. Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) Present petition under section 482 Cr.PC is for quashing of FIR No.114 dated 25.5.2010 under sections 409/419/406/420/467/468/471/506/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Kanina, District Mohindergarh and the subsequent proceedings on the basis of compromise dated 22.6.2010 (Annexure P-3) arrived at between the petitioners and respondent No.2- complainant. As per allegations in the FIR, petitioners are stated to have defrauded/cheated the complainant by entering into an agreement to sell and grabbed Rs.15,00,000/-. Vide order dated 23.7.2010, this Court had directed the ld. Crl.M.No.21005-M of 2010 #2# Illaqa Magistrate, Mohindergarh to record the statements of all the parties concerned and submit report on the next date of hearing i.e 13.9.2010. It appears that on 13.9.2010, said report was not received and the explanation of the concerned Illaqa Magistrate was sought. A letter/report dated 27.9.2010 has been received through Fax from JMIC, Mohindergarh wherein it is stated that the statement of the complainant was recorded before the court on 30.8.2010 whereby he has entered into settlement and compromised in regard to the allegations with all the petitioners and has no objection if the aforesaid FIR is quashed against the petitioners. It is further stated in the report of the concerned Magistrate that in compliance of order dated 23.7.2010 passed by this Court, a letter No.794 dated 1.9.2010 had already been sent to this court alongwith copy of compromise (Ex.CX) through ld. District & Sessions Judge, Narnaul. Said letter/report is taken on record as Mark-A. No further action is called for. Learned state counsel is unable to raise any serious objection to the quashing of the FIR on the basis of the compromise since the complainant is not willing to support the prosecution case. A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has 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 Crl.M.No.21005-M of 2010 #3# 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.” 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 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 have desired to live in peace Crl.M.No.21005-M of 2010 #4# 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.114 dated 25.5.2010 under sections 409/419/406/420/467/468/471/506/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Kanina, District Mohindergarh and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. September 27, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE