CRM No. M 32696 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 32696 of 2009 Date of decision: 04.05.2010 Yadwinder Singh ........ petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Raman Mohinder, Advocate for for the petitioner Mr. K S Pannu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent- State Ms Peeush Gagneja, Advocate for respondent No. 2 -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement 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.49 dated 03.03.2009 registered under Sections 452/336 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 27, 54, 59 Arms Act at Police Station Sadar Abohar, District Ferozepur on the basis of the compromise having been arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. A separate statement of the complainant was also recorded in the Court to the same effect. CRM No. M 32696 of 2009 2 On December 18, 2008, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, this petition was ordered as allowed on the basis of compromise. However, while signing the said order, it came to my notice that FIR No. 49 dated 03.03.2009 registered under Sections 452/336 of Indian Penal Code is also registered under Sections 27, 54 and 59 of Arms Act at Police Station Sadar Abohar, District Ferozepur. Accordingly, it was ordered for re-hearing. Matter was reheard. Reply on behalf of respondent No. 1 has been filed in Court today. The same is taken on record. Copy thereof has been supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not denied by the State that shot was fired in the air. Nor is it denied that the weapon was a licenced weapon. It is admitted that no one was injured. The parties belong to same village. In view of the facts and proposition of law as discussed hereunder, this Court is satisfied that the compromise is genuine and it is in the interest of justice to accept the same as it will reduce the friction in society. It would be relevant to note the facts of the present case. As per the FIR, the relations between the petitioner and the complainant were not good at the time of the election of Panchayat. During the time of election, the complainant casted vote in favour of different candidate. When the complainant was present in his house, petitioner Yadwinder Singh entered the house of the complainant and started abusing the brother of the complainant. It was stated that Yadwinder Singh fired a shot in the air from his rifle, which he was carrying and went outside abusing the complainant and his brother. However, no one was injured in the aforesaid incident. CRM No. M 32696 of 2009 3 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, 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.” In the present case, no one was injured in the aforesaid incident. CRM No. M 32696 of 2009 4 It is evident from the above that since the matter has already been compromised between the parties, the chances of conviction of the petitioner are almost nil. The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed. Keeping in mind the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh as well as the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot (supra) as also the facts of the present case, it would be in the interest of justice to quash FIR No.49 dated 03.03.2009 registered under Sections 452/336 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 27, 54, 59 Arms Act at Police Station Sadar Abohar, District Ferozepur and the further proceedings arising out of the same for keeping peace, harmony as well as to reduce friction in the society qua the petitioner . Accordingly, the aforesaid FIR and the further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 04.05.2010 mohan