Crl.M.No.18799-M of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.18799-M of 2010 Date of Order:17.9.2010 S.C Kanaujia .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Addl.A.G, Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. S.N. Gaur, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3. Mr. Hari Pal Verma, Advocate for respondent No.4. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) Prayer in the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is for quashing FIR No.23 dated 18.1.2010 IPC, under Sections 420/465/467/468/471/120-B IPC, P.S. Central District Faridabad on the basis of compromise dated 27.2.2010 (P.5). As per the allegations in the FIR, forged and fabricated lease deed was created by the petitioner with a view to deprive the complainant of her valuable property. This court vide order dated 6.8.2010 directed the ld. Trial Court to record the statements of the parties concerned and submit report with regard to genuineness of the compromise. In pursuance of the same, ld. ACJM, Faridabad has sent report by way of letter whereby the statements of all the parties concerned have been recorded and the compromise between Crl.M.No.18799-M of 2010 #2# the parties has been stated to be genuine and correct. Learned state counsel, on instructions from ASI Satbir Singh, states that he has no objection to quashing of FIR as the parties have compromised the matter. In view of the nature of the dispute and the fact that the complainant is not willing to support the prosecution, no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the proceedings. A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, may quash an FIR disclosing the commission of non-compoundable offences. The relevant extracts read 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 powers 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.” Crl.M.No.18799-M of 2010 #3# Similar views were expressed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abot v. State of Punjab 2008(4) SCC 582, the relevant extract of which is 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.” Keeping in view the above settled legal position and taking into account the fact that both the parties have desired to live in peace and harmony and carry on with their lives by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, it is evident that 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 the FIR in the interest of justice. Crl.M.No.18799-M of 2010 #4# Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.23 dated 18.1.2010 IPC, under Sections 420/465/467/468/471/120-B IPC, P.S. Central District Faridabad and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. September 17, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE