IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-16464 of 2010 Date of Decision : August 11, 2010. Arjun Kaushal and another ....... Petitioners Versus Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh, and another ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Amit Prashar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Hemant Bassi, Standing Counsel, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Arun Dogra, Advocate, for the complainant/respondent No. 2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The prayer in the present petition is for quashing of FIR No. 114 dated 28.03.2010, under Sections 392/354/506/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 34, Chandigarh, (Annexure-P-1), on the basis of compromise, which has been entered into between the petitioners and respondent No. 2/complainant. It has been pleaded in the petition that there was an altercation between the petitioners and husband of the complainant/respondent No. 2, when the petitioners, who were riding a motorcycle and crossed the couple. Because of which a scuffle between the husband of the complainant/respondent No. 2 took place at the spot where chain of the complainant/respondent No.2 went missing. He contends that they are residents of the same locality and with the intervention of the respectables and the elders keeping in view the young age of the petitioners, a compromise has been entered into between the parties, which has been accepted by the complainant/respondent No. 2, vide her affidavit dated 26.05.2010 (Annexure- Crl. Misc. No. M-16464 of 2010. -2- P-2) placed on record. He on the basis of the said compromise prays that the said FIR be quashed. Upon notice having been issued by this Court, complainant/respondent No. 2 Goldy Saini wife of Shri Dayal and Shri Dayal son of late Shri Harish, are present in the Court. They have been identified by their counsel (counsel for complainant/respondent No. 2). The original affidavit dated 26.05.2010 has been placed on record. The factum of compromise having been entered into between the parties has been acknowledged and it has further been stated that the complainant and her husband have no objection to the quashing of the said FIR in the light of the compromise. Goldy Saini and Shri Dayal have stated that a compromise has indeed been entered into and they do not have any objection to the quashing of the FIR. A perusal of the FIR indicates that there was a scuffle between the parties, in which the chain of the complainant/respondent No. 2 went missing, which fact has been acknowledged by her in the Court. She states that the said chain was not taken by the petitioners. In view of the statement made by the complainant/respondent No. 2 Goldy Saini and her husband Shri Dayal and the light of the fact that a compromise has been entered into keeping in view the young age of the petitioner, the present petition deserves to be allowed. Reliance can be made upon the Larger Bench Judgment of this Court in the case Kulvinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another 2007(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1052, while discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise, by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non-compoundable offences, has held as under :- Crl. Misc. No. M-16464 of 2010. -3- “28. 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 in a matrimonial discord, landlord- tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation. 29. 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.” Therefore, in view of the discussion above, since the parties have amicably settled the matter, which is otherwise in the interest of justice and appears to have been effected to promote peace and harmony amongst the parties, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, FIR No. 114 dated 28.03.2010, under Sections 392/354/506/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 34, Chandigarh, is quashed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE August 11, 2010. sjks.