IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-31072 of 2009 Date of Decision:14.9.2010 Piara Lal .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. G.B.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 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) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.67 dated 22.4.2008 under Sections 452/323/341/506 IPC Police Station Dhariwal District Gurdaspur and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The FIR in question was got registered by respondent No.2 against the petitioners on the allegations of beatings. However, the matter is stated to have compromised. Compromise deed (Annexure P-2) has been placed on record. Accordingly, notice of motion was issued and on 29.4.2010, report of the trial Court was called for in order to verify whether the parties have voluntarily entered into an agreement in respect of the offences mentioned in the FIR. The trial Court was further directed to file its report after recording the statements of the parties. In pursuance to the same, report CRM M-31072 of 2009 -2- dated 25.8.2010 from Amit Malhan, PCS, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Gurdaspur, has been received submitting therein that the statements of complainant Jagdish Raj son of Santokh Raj and Piara Lal son of Bhadur Chand have been recorded. Complainant stated in his statement that the matter has been compromised between the parties with the intervention of respectable of the village. He further states that the matter has been compromise without any terms and conditions. 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 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 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 v. State of Punjab 2008(4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under:- CRM M-31072 of 2009 -3- “ 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.” Taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties, compromised deed (Annexure P-2) and the report submitted by the trial Court with respect to the compromise, it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.67 dated 22.4.2008 under Sections 452/323/341/506 IPC Police Station Dhariwal District Gurdaspur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 14.9.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE