IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-711 of 2008 Date of Decision:3.5.2010 Charanjit Singh Dua .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. B.B. Sobti, 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 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved for quashing of Calendra proceedings titled as “State v. Charanjit Singh” under Section 182 of IPC pending in the Court of Shri K.K. Bansal, J.M.I.C., Ludhiana, bearing Criminal No.10311 of 15.5.2007 and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner made a complaint dated 23.10.2006 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana for registration of a case under Sections 419/420/467/471/120-B IPC against respondent No.2. Consequently, on the complaint made by the petitioner, an inquiry was initiated. However, during the course of the said inquiry, respondent No.2 submitted an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, stating that the petitioner has mislead the police by filing aforesaid application just in order to make the police to take action against respondent No.2. Pursuant to the application made by respondent No.2, an inquiry was initiated and on the basis of the said investigation, the Calandra under Section 182 IPC was prepared and the same was submitted in the learned Court of Competent Jurisdiction. On perusal of the case file as well as documents placed on record, the dispute appears to be civil in nature, notwithstanding the fact that there is no final adjudication with regard to the truthfulness of the CRM M-711 of 2007 -2- allegations made by the petitioner or respondent No.2. Even otherwise, during the pendency of the present petition, both the parties entered into a compromise. The compromise has also been placed on record as A-1 vide Crl. M. No.13063 of 2010. A separate statement of respondent No.2 has also been recorded in the Court today stating that he has no objection, if the said Calandra is quashed and he further stated that the said compromise was entered into without any pressure and out of his own sweet will. Even otherwise, there is no finding with respect to the truthfulness of the complaint moved by the petitioner. The same are pending when proceedings under Section 182 IPC were proceeded. Such proceedings under Section 182 IPC cannot be sustained. Learned Single Bench of this Court in a similar case decided on 4.4.2007 in Crl. M. No.36187-M of 2006 while quashing the Calendra filed under Section 182 IPC held as under: “ From the above resume of facts, there can be no other conclusion but to hold that no judicial verdict was ever found in the statement made by deceased Sudesh Kumari which led to registration of FIR against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to be false to her knowledge. In the absence of any such finding by a Court of competent jurisdiction, in my view, the initiation of proceedings under Section 182 IPC is wholly untenable. It may be noticed here that both the parties are still supporting the compromise in terms whereof the Memorandum of Understanding (Annexure P-3) was executed between them. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 and 3 has accordingly taken up a fair stand that he has no objection if the impugned proceedings are quashed. For the reasons aforestated, this petition is allowed; the impugned Calendra under Section 182 IPC (Annexure P-1) as well as the notice issued under Section 251 Cr.P.C. by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (Annexure P-2) as well as all other proceedings arising out thereof are hereby 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 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 CRM M-711 of 2007 -3- 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:- “ 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.” Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and Calendra proceedings titled as “State v. Charanjit Singh” under Section 182 of IPC pending in the Court of Shri K.K. Bansal, J.M.I.C., Ludhiana, bearing Criminal No.10311 of 15.5.2007 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. 3.5.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE