CRM No. M 25999 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 25999 of 2010 Date of decision: 11.02.2011 Pinder Kaur and others ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. N S Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioners Ms Neelam, AAG, Punjab for the respondent - State None for respondent No. 2 - complainant -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter 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. 179 dated 19.12.2002 under Sections 326, 324, 323, 452, 34 of Indian Penal Code, P S Dharamkot, District Moga (Annexure P-1) which was on the statement of deceased Ranjit Singh i.e. father of respondents No. 2 and 4 against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 22.08.2010 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. Vide order dated 18.11.2010, the parties were given liberty to CRM No. M 25999 of 2010 2 appear before the learned trial Court by making appropriate application who shall record their statements in terms of compromise and submit its report regarding the genuineness of the compromise. In pursuance to the same, the trial Court, vide letter dated 23.12.2010 has submitted its report, stating therein, that Joginder Singh, Kuldeep Singh, Harminder Singh sons of Ranjit Singh who was complainant now has since expired, appeared before the trial Court and got recorded their statements. As per their statements they have compromised with matter with the accused persons and have no grudge against the accused. From the above, it is amply clear that the sons of the complainant have compromised with the accused persons out of their own free will and without any pressure and they do not want to pursue the said FIR. In the present case, the said FIR was got registered on the statement of Ranjit Singh, who is stated to have expired on 11.05.2010. Thereafter, the sons of the complainant have compromised with the accused persons. They have also suffered their statements before the trial Court with respect to the compromise as ordered by this Court. 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 observed as under:- “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, CRM No. M 25999 of 2010 3 enhances the social amity and reduced 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 exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.” The Apex Court in the case of 'Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:- “6. We need to emphasize 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.” The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. All sons of the complainant have no objection if the said FIR is quashed. Taking into account the allegations, compromise as well as report of the trial Court, verifying the genuineness of the said compromise, 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 said CRM No. M 25999 of 2010 4 settled proposition of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 179 dated 19.12.2002 under Sections 326, 324, 323, 452, 34 of Indian Penal Code, P S Dharamkot, District Moga (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 11.02.2011 mohan