CRM No. M 25131 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 25131 of 2009 Date of decision: 28.01.2011 Sukhdev Singh ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. S S Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K S Sidhu, DAG, Punjab None for private respondents -.- 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 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 269 dated 27.11.2006 under Sections 279, 337, 427, 304-A of Indian Penal Code, P S Sadar Rajpura, District Patiala (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 25.12.2008 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. CRM No. M 25131 of 2009 2 Vide order dated 16.03.2010, the respondents were directed to appear before the trial court for recording of their statements. The trial Court was also directed to submits its report with respect to the compromise as to whether the same is genuine or not. In pursuance to the same, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura has submitted her reported dated 04.09.2010, stating therein, that the parties were appeared and got their statements recorded. It is also stated that the complainant appears to be genuine. Facts in short are that on 27.11.2006, respondents No. 2 to 6 along with Dhanna Singh son of Shri Harnam Singh were travelling in a Zen bearing registration No. PB 10 BN 5820 and an accident took place with a Scorpio SUV bearing Registration No. PB 10 BL 3152 which was being driven by petitioner Sukhdev Singh. In the said accident, Dhanna Singh son of Shri Harnam Singh died. Thereafter, on the statement of Arsheep Singh son of Harwinder Singh, the aforesaid FIR was got registered against the present petitioner under Sections 279, 337, 427, 304- A IPC at police Station Sadar Rajpura, District Patiala. Subsequently, the matter was compromised between the parties. Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 as well as the legal heirs of Dhanna Singh do not want to proceed with the present case. To that effect, their affidavits have already been taken on record. Judicial Magistrate has submitted her report stating therein that the compromise is indeed genuine. 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:- CRM No. M 25131 of 2009 3 “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.” It is further held in the said judgment that:- “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 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. 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 CRM No. M 25131 of 2009 4 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. Respondents No. 2 to 6 as well as legal heirs of the deceased have no objection if the said FIR is quashed. Taking into account the allegations, compromise, affidavits of respondents No. 2 to 6, legal heirs of deceased as well as the report of the trial Court authenticating the genuineness of the said compromise, 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. 269 dated 27.11.2006 under Sections 279, 337, 427, 304-A of Indian Penal Code, P S Sadar Rajpura, District Patiala (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 28.01.2011 mohan