Criminal Misc. M 22988 of 2009. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- Criminal Misc. M 22988 of 2009. Date of decision: November 30, 2009 Harjit Kaur and another ........ petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. N S Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent-State Mr. Deepinder Brar, 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) FIR No. 135 dated 01.10.2004 under Section 353, 186, 341 and 323 IPC at Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana was registered against the petitioners at the behest of respondent No. 2, namely, Satpal Singh son of Ishar Singh. The matter has since been compromised. It would be relevant to note the facts in the present case. Criminal Misc. M 22988 of 2009. 2 According to respondent No. 2, who was an employee of the Electricity Department, Punjab had gone to the house of the petitioners for the purpose of meter reading. He entered the house of the petitioners without knocking at the door and also without ringing the door bell. The petitioners who were not aware of this fact that respondent No. 2 was an employee of the Electricity Department, rather, thought that some wrong person had entered their house. They raised alarm and a minor brawl took place between the parties. The misunderstanding has finally been resolved. The matter has been amicably settled. Respondent No. 2, Stapal Singh, has accordingly got recorded his statement separately to the effect that he has no objection if the aforesaid FIR is quashed. As per the decision of the Full Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another-2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. In Kulwinder Singh's case (supra), it was held as under :- “ The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be a hostage to one class or category of cases. That would be a complete mis-construction of the intent of the Legislature, who placed its utmost faith in the inherent power of the High Court to break free the shackle of other provisions of the Code to give effect to any order under it or to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” And further in paras 24 and 25, concluded as follows :- “24. While parting with this part, it appears Criminal Misc. M 22988 of 2009. 3 necessary to add that the settlement or compromise must satisfy the conscience of the court. The settlement must be just and fair besides being free from the undue pressure, the court must examine the cases of weaker and vulnerable victims with necessary caution. 25. To conclude, it can safely be said that there can never be any hard and fast category which can be prescribed to enable the Court to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The only principle that can be laid down is the one which has been incorporated in the Section itself, i.e., “to prevent abuse of the process of any Court” or “to secure the ends of justice”. It is apparent case of misunderstanding. The complainant wishes to lead a peaceful and uncomplicated life. Accordingly, he wishes to withdraw his complaint having realised the error. It is a fit case to exercise the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the aforesaid FIR on the basis of compromise having been arrived at between the parties. In view of the nature of the allegations and the law laid down in the case of Kulwinder Singh (supra) which is applicable in the facts of the present case and also taking into consideration the statement of respondent No. 2, recorded separately, FIR No. 135 dated 01.10.2004 under Section 353, 186, 341 and 323 IPC registered at Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana and further proceedings arising thereof are hereby quashed. The petition is accordingly allowed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge November 30, 2009 mohan