Crl. Misc.No.M 18227 of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc.No.M 18227 of 2010 Date of Decision:-03.08.2010 Darshan Singh &Ors. ......Petitioners. Versus State of Punjab & Ors. ......Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr.G.S. Toor, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab. Mr. Sumeet Puri, Advocate for Respondent no.2. *** JASWANT SINGH, J.(ORAL) Present petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code has been filed for quashing of complaint (Annexure 1) under Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Attrocities) Act 1989 and Sections 323, 506, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code filed in the court of JMIC Barnala and all the subsequent Crl. Misc.No.M 18227 of 2010 #2# proceedings arising thereto on the basis of compromise deed dated 5.6.2010(Annexure P-2). Upon notice complainant-respondent no.2 has put in appearance in the court and has been identified by his counsel. He has also filed reply by way of affidavit dated 9.7.2010. Respondent no.2- complainant has owned his signatures on compromise dated 5.6.2010 and further states that he does not wish to pursue this case and has no objection if the present complaint and all subsequent proceedings are quashed. His statement has been separately recorded. 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 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.” 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 Crl. Misc.No.M 18227 of 2010 #3# 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 without any ill will or rancour by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, it is evident that it is a fit case where there is no legal impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of the complaint in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and complaint (Annexure P-1) under Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Attrocities) Act 1989 and Sections 323, 506, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code filed in the court of JMIC Barnala and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE 03rd August, 2010 Vinay