CRM No. M 13981 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 13981 of 2010 Date of decision: 23.09.2010 Janak Raj and others ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Bikramjit Arora, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for respondent No. 2 and 3 -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 172 dated 15.07.2003 under Sections 452, 323, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code (later on Section 325 IPC added), registered at Police Station Jhabhal District Tarn Taran which resulted into the conviction of the present petitioners under Sections 452, 325,323 read with Section 34 IPC vide judgement dated 02.12.2008 passed by the trial Court, on the basis of compromise. CRM No. M 13981 of 2010 2 Facts of the case, in brief, are that Respondents No.2 and 3 belong to the same locality and due to some misunderstanding, a dispute took place between the parties. On the statement of respondents No. 2, the present FIR was registered against the petitioners. After investigation, the challan was presented and charges were framed against the petitioners under Section 452, 325, 323 read with Section 34 IPC. In the aforesaid case, the petitioners were convicted and sentenced as mentioned in para 4 of the petition vide judgement and order dated 02.12.2008 passed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the present petitioners filed appeal against the aforesaid judgement before the Court of Sessions at Amritsar. The same is pending. During the pendency of the appeal, the matter has been amicably settled between both the parties. Respondent No. 3 is also present in Court along with his counsel. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 and 3 also stated that the matter has been compromised and respondents No. 2 and 3 do not want to pursue the case and they have no objection if the aforesaid FIR as well as conviction of the present petitioners is quashed. Learned counsel has also filed the affidavit of Raj Kumar-Respondent No. 3, who is also present, in Court today. In the aforesaid affidavit, it is stated that the matter has been compromised amicably and he has no objection if the FIR along with all the further proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. In the present case, the FIR was lodged on the statement of respondent No. 2 - Vicky Sharma, who is neither present in Court today nor his affidavit stating that the matter has been compromise is placed on CRM No. M 13981 of 2010 3 record. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents stated that respondent No. 2 is ready to appear and make his statement admitting the factum compromise arrived at between the parties before the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar where the appeal filed by the present petitioners against conviction is pending. The Apex Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 910 while quashing the FIR and all proceedings arising out of the same held that the continuation of criminal proceedings in view of the compromise would be an abuse of the process of law. In that case also, the appellants were convicted under Section 498-A IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment of 18 months. An appeal was filed against the conviction order and during pendency of the appeal the parties had settled their differences. However, they filed petition before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complainant as well as conviction order on account of the compromise. The High Court dismissed the same. Aggrieved, they challenged the same before the Apex Court. The Apex Court accepted the compromise and quashed the FIR and all the proceedings arising as well as order conviction. This Court in the case of Sukhwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2008 (3) RCR (Criminal) 991 while relying on the judgement of Khursheed and another v. State of UP and another, 2007 (4) RCR (Criminal) 495 allowed the appellants to compound the offence under Section 452 IPC during the pendency of the appeal. CRM No. M 13981 of 2010 4 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 observed as under:- “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 reduced 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 exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.” In view of the settled proposition of law and in view of the fact that the parties have compromised the matter with the intervention of the respectables, it would be in the interest of justice to accept the compromise and to allow the parties to live amicably. Therefore, there is no impediment in accepting the compromise and quashing the FIR and conviction order dated 02.12.2008 passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the petitioners are allowed to compound their offence in the FIR No.172 dated 15.07.2003 under Sections 452, 323, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code (later on Section 325 IPC added), registered at Police Station Jhabhal District Taran Taran and judgement and order dated 02.12.2008 convicting and sentencing the petitioners under Sections 452, CRM No. M 13981 of 2010 5 325, 323 read with Section 34 IPC subject to respondent No. 2 - complainant appearing before the Appellate Court and making his statement admitting the factum of compromise having been arrived at between the parties and also on the satisfaction of the Appellate Court where the appeal against the order of conviction dated 02.12.2008 passed by the trial Court is pending. Disposed of accordingly. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 23.09.2010 mohan