Crl. Misc. No.M-20214 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-20214 of 2010 Date of Decision: 12.11.2010 Balwinder Kaur @ Baljinder Kaur and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Avtar S. Khinda, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S. Paul, D.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. Munish Gulati, 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) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR No.105 dated 29.05.2006 under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Zira, District Ferozepur as the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. The FIR in question was got registered by respondent No.2. However, the matter is stated to have been compromised. Compromise deed (Annexure P-2) has been placed on record. Accordingly, notice of motion was issued and the parties were directed to be present in the Court. In pursuance to the notice, the parties are present in the Court through their respective counsel. It is not disputed that the matter has Crl. Misc. No.M-20214 of 2010 2 been compromised. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that as per the compromise, respondent No.2 has received the entire disputed amount from the petitioners. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also placed on record the affidavit of respondent No.2 authenticating the compromise. At this stage, learned counsel for the State has pointed out that petitioners are proclaimed offenders. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others reported as (1980) 1 SCC 63, held that:- “29. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the Cr.P.C. or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Sections 482 of the Cr.P.C.” While relying on the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, this Court in the case of Jobanjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and others (Crl. Misc. No.10033 of 2009, decided on 29.07.2009) quashed the proceedings declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender by observing as under :- “ Keeping in view the enunciation of law as referred to above and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case, once the matter has been compromised between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the prosecution. Accordingly, order dated 23.12.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar (Annexure P-3) declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender, FIR No.38 dated 05.07.2000, registered at Police Station Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar, under Sections 323, 325, 341, 148 and 149 IPC (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner.” Similar view was also held by this Court in the case of Crl. Misc. No.M-20214 of 2010 3 Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab and another (CRM No.M-1238 of 2007, decided on 29.01.2007). Taking into account that it is not only a case of simple compromise but the entire amount in dispute stands paid, the fact that petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender should not stand in the way to accept the compromise and quash the FIR in the facts of the present case. 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:- “ 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 Crl. Misc. No.M-20214 of 2010 4 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.” The matter has been compromised. The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed. Taking into account the allegations, as well as the affidavit of the complainant, 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 settled proposition of law. Accordingly, the aforesaid FIR and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed qua the present petitioners. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 12.11.2010 JUDGE gurpreet