Crl. Misc. No.M-28523 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-28523 of 2010 Date of Decision: 08.02.2011 Sonia Bajaj @ Amandeep ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- None for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Rana, D.A.G., Haryana for the respondent-State. Mr. D.S. Virk, Advocate for respondent No.2-complainant. ***** 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.83 dated 21.04.2009 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC registered at Police Station Baldev Nagar, District Ambala on the basis of compromise. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. It would be relevant to note the facts of the present case. As per the allegations in the FIR, the petitioner was working as a front office executive in the company with which the respondent used to transact his business activities. On account of failure of the accused company to regulate the business activities with the respondent in a smooth and effective manner, a financial loss occurred to the respondent and the respondent feeling aggrieved got registered the above said FIR, wherein, Crl. Misc. No.M-28523 of 2010 2 the petitioner was also implicated as one of the accused by the respondent and that too with the name of Sonia Bajaj as her real name is Amandeep Kaur. Now, compromise has been arrived at between the complainant and the present petitioner-Sonia Bajaj. As per the compromise (P-2), the complainant has no objection, if the FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising out the same are quashed qua the present petitioner only. The present petitioner is only a Receptionist. Being an employee, she had no idea about the real intention or modus operandi of the Company. Hence, the offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC is not attracted qua the petitioner. An affidavit was also executed affirming the factum of compromise and the same is placed on record as P-3. This Court in the case of Parambir Singh Gill vs. Malkiat Kaur reported as 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 256 quashed the proceedings against one of the accused on the basis of compromise, whereas proceedings against the other co-accused were allowed to continue. 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 Crl. Misc. No.M-28523 of 2010 3 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 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.” In the present case, the dispute is purely personal in nature and the compromise has been arrived at between the petitioner and the complainant. The said compromise has been arrived at between the two without any pressure. The complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed qua the present petitioner. Taking into account the allegations and the fact that the petitioner is an employee of the Company, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR at least qua the petitioner. Keeping in mind the decisions rendered by this Court in the cases of Parambir Singh Gill (supra), Kulwinder Singh (supra), as well as, the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot (supra) as also the facts of the present case, the compromise qua the petitioner deserves to be accepted. Thus, in the Crl. Misc. No.M-28523 of 2010 4 interest of justice FIR No. 83 dated 21.04.2009 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC registered at Police Station Baldev Nagar, District Ambala on the basis of compromise qua the present petitioner only are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the aforesaid FIR and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed qua the petitioner whereas the proceedings against other accused shall continue. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 08.02.2011 JUDGE gurpreet