Crl. Misc. No.M-23656 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-23656 of 2010 Date of decision: 14.09.2010 Charanjit Singh and others. .. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another. .. Respondents Present:- Mr.Jasbir S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S.Pannu, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. Mr.B.S.Makar, Advocate, for respondent No.-2/complainant. * * * * 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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.147 dated 28.10.2009, under Sections 420 read with 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Raikot, District Ludhiana (Rural), and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The present FIR was got registered by respondent No.2-complainant against the petitioners on the allegations that they had cheated him on the pretext of sending him abroad after his marriage with Anita. However, the matter has been compromised. An affidavit of respondent No.2-Jagrup Singh authenticating the compromise has also been placed on record. Compromise deed has also been placed on record Crl. Misc. No.M-23656 of 2010 ::2:: to the same effect. Further, respondent No.2-Jagrup Singh, who is present in the Court today, as identified by his counsel, also suffered a statement to this effect (recorded separately). As per his statement, the matter has been compromised. As per compromise/affidavit, the parties have resolved their dispute amicably with the help and intervention of the respectable persons and well wishers of the parties. It is further stated in the compromise deed that the amount claimed by respondent No.2-Jagrup Singh has been paid to him by the petitioners and part of the amount i.e. Rs.5.50 lac claimed has been kept with one Sh.Prem Chand, son of Shri ram Chand, resident of Mohalla Prem Nagar, Moga, which shall be paid to respondent No.2-Jagrup Singh by him on the quashing of the criminal case. Thus, the respondent No.2-Jagrup Singh has no objection if the FIR in question and proceedings under it are quashed. 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”. Crl. Misc. No.M-23656 of 2010 ::3:: 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 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 save can be utilized 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 compromise has been effected between the parties, affidavit of respondent No.2 authenticating the compromise and statement of the respondent No.2 as suffered by him today in the Court (recorded separately), 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.147 dated 28.10.2009, under Sections 420 read with 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Raikot, District Ludhiana (Rural), and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. September 14, 2010 (NIRMALJIT KAUR) sukhpreet JUDGE