CRM No. M 29486 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 29486 of 2010 Date of decision: 03.02.2011 Nachattar Singh and others ........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. K K Goel, Advocate with Mr. R P Daaria, Advocate for the petitioners Ms Neelam, AAG, Punjab Mr. K K Garg, Advocate for respondent No. 2 - complainant -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) CRM 6230 of 2011 This is an application under Sectin 482 Cr.P.C for impleading Manjit Kaur wife of Gursewak Singh, resident of Village Ladaal, Tehsil Lehragaga, District Sangrur as respondent No. 3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, C.M. is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be impleaded as respondent No. 3. CRM No. M 29486 of 2010 2 Memo of parties be amended accordingly. Main case Notice to the freshly impleaded respondent No. 3. Mr. K K Garg, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 3 and has filed affidavit of injured Manjit Kaur. The same is taken on record. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 18 dated 28.05.2010 under Sections 452, 336, 323, 341, 506, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, P S Dharamgarh (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 25.09.2010 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. Complainant - Jagtar Singh and Injured - Manjit Kaur are present in Court along with their counsel. Vide order dated 05.10.2010, the area Magistrate was directed to send his report with regard to the validity or otherwise of the compromise after recording statement of the complainant before the next date of hearing. In pursuance to the same, the Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-cum- Judicial Magistrate, Sunam has submitted its report dated 09.11.2010, stating therein, that a voluntarily compromise is arrived at between the parties. Moreover, Injured has also filed her affidavit stating therein that the matter is compromised without any due influence and she has no objection if the the FIR is quashed. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh CRM No. M 29486 of 2010 3 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.” The Apex Court in the case of 'Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:- “6. We need to emphasize 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 said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainant as well as injured have no objection CRM No. M 29486 of 2010 4 if the said FIR is quashed. Taking into account the allegations, compromise dated 25.09.2010, report of the trial Court, verifying the genuineness of the compromise as well as affidavit of the injured, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the above said settled proposition of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 18 dated 28.05.2010 under Sections 452, 336, 323, 341, 506, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, P S Dharamgarh (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 03.02.2011 mohan