IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-27450 of 2009 Date of Decision:11.8.2010 Harjit Kaur .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. S.K. Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. K.S. Rekhi, 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 FIR No.212 dated 9.12.2004 registered under Sections 403/406/420/421/422/467/468/471/120-B IPC at Police Station City Faridkot and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the ground that the complainant has consented for compounding of the offence and withdrawal of the case in view of the fact that nothing remains due or recoverable from the accused-petitioner or her Late husband. The FIR in question was got registered by respondent No.2 against the petitioner and her Late husband on the allegation of misappropriation of loan amount i.e. Rs. 3,15,000/- by not properly using the same. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has paid back the loan of the complainant-Bank long back with interest and ancillary expenditure etc. and the claim of the bank is now fully stands satisfied against the petitioner and her Late Husband. It is also submitted that during pendency of the case, husband of petitioner died on 22.1.2009 and accordingly, after doing the needful, the learned Trial Court deleted/struck off the name of the said co-accused from CRM M-27450 of 2009 -2- the array of accused and the proceedings against him stood abated. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2-Bank has not disputed the aforesaid position. Reply has also been filed on behalf of respondent No.2-Bank submitting therein that the petitioner has repaid the loan amount alongwith interest and other ancillary expenses and now nothing is due against the petitioner. It is further submitted that respondent No.2-Bank has issued No Due Certificate in favour of the petitioner and the Bank has got no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. It is further submitted that No Due Certificate was rightly issued by the Bank after the receipt of entire loan amount and the complainant has got no objection in quashing the said FIR. Accordingly, it appears that the matter has been compromised. 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 CRM M-27450 of 2009 -3- 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 allegation in FIR and reply filed by respondent No.2-Bank complainant, 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.212 dated 9.12.2004 registered under Sections 403/406/420/421/422/467/468/471/120-B IPC at Police Station City Faridkot and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. 11.8.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE