CRM No. M 33805 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 33805 of 2009 Date of decision: 18.02.2010 Ranjit Singh Chauhan and others ........Petitioners Versus Shakuntla Devi and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. R P Dhir, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. B B S Teji, AAG, Punjab for the respondent - State Mr. Rajnish K Jindal, Advocate for the complainant -.- 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) This is a petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure of Code for quashing of the Complaint No. 185 dated 05.07.2007 (Annexure P-1) titled as 'Shakuntla Devi v. Ranjit Singh Chauhan and others, (Annexure P-1) as well as the summoning order dated 31.01.2008 (Annexure P-2) on the basis of compromise deed dated 13.10.2009 (Annexure P-3). CRM No. M 33805 of 2009 2 It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent No. 1 - Shakuntla Devi has compromised the matter with the intervention of the respectable persons of the area and has entered into a compromise deed dated 13.10.2009 (Annexure P-3). As per the compromise, complainant-Shakuntla Devi does not wish to proceed with her complaint. The statement of the complainant has also been recorded to that effect in the Court. The complainant has also filed her affidavit admitting the contents of the petition. As per her statement, she has no objection if the aforesaid complaint is quashed. It is further stated by her that she has entered into the compromise out of her own free will and without any pressure. As per the allegations in the FIR, the petitioners had forcibly entered the house of respondent No. 1 and abused her by her caste. The allegations contained in the FIR are personal in nature. Now, the matter has been compromised between the parties. The complainant has no objection if the complaint is quashed. 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 CRM No. M 33805 of 2009 3 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.” Hon'ble 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.” Taking into account the allegations as well as the compromise and the affidavit filed by the complainant, it would be a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to CRM No. M 33805 of 2009 4 quash the complaint and the summoning order. Since the parties having compromised the matter, the continuation of criminal proceedings is not likely to result in the conviction of the petitioners. Thus, the same would be a futile exercise. In view of the well settled proposition of law and also the facts of the present case narrated above, Complaint No. 185 dated 05.07.2007 (Annexure P-1) titled as 'Shakuntla Devi v. Ranjit Singh Chauhan and others, (Annexure P-1) and the summoning order dated 31.01.2008 (Annexure P-2) are accordingly quashed qua the present petitioners. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge February 18.02.2010 mohan