IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-17981 of 2010 Date of Decision:24.2.2011 Bhupinder Singh and another .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. A.S. Bhatti, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Gurveen H. Singh, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Mr. A.S. Barnala, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.165 dated 15.11.2000 under Sections 452/326/324/323/148/149 IPC Police Station Bholath, District Kapurthala and all the subsequent proceedings arising thereon including the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court dated 8.1.2010 on the basis of compromise. The brief facts relevant in the present petition are that FIR No.165 dated 15.11.2000 under Sections 452/326/324/323/148/149 IPC Police Station Bholath, District Kapurthala was got registered by respondent No.2. The petitioners were tried and convicted in the said FIR. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an appeal against their conviction before the appellate Court and the same is pending. During the pendency of the appeal, both the parties have entered into a compromise with the intervention of respectables of the village. Compromise deed (Annexure P-3) has already been placed on record. CRM M-17981 of 2010 -2- The parties are present in the Court alongwith their respective counsel. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 has already placed on record the affidavits of respondent No.2 and 3 authenticating the compromise on 30.7.2010. As per the said affidavits, respondents No.2 and 3 have no objection if the petitioners are acquitted of the charges. The Apex Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 910 while quasahing the FIR and all proceedings arising out of the same held that the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. In that case also the petitioners were convicted under Section 498-A IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment of 18 months. An appeal was filed against the conviction order and during the pendency of the appeal, the parties had settled their differences. However, they filed petition before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint as well as conviction order on account of the compromise. The High Court dismissed the same. Aggrieved, they challenged the same before the Apex Court. The Apex Court accepted the compromise and quashed the FIR and all the proceedings arising out of the same, as well as order of conviction. This Court in the case of Sukhwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 991 who relying upon the judgment of Khursheed and another v. State of U.P. And another, 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 495 allowed the petitioners to compound the offence under Section 452 IPC during the pendency of the appeal. 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 CRM M-17981 of 2010 -3- 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.” Taking into account the facts of the present case as well as the fact that the parties have compromised the matter with the intervention of the respectable of the village, it would be in the interest of justice to accept the compromise and to allow the parties to live amicably which shall reduce the friction in the society and promote peace and harmony. In view of the above and settled proposition of law, the parties are allowed to compound the offences. Accordingly, the parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Court where the appeal is pending. Thereafter, the Appellate Court shall pass appropriate orders in the light of permission granted by this Court to the parties to compound the offence. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed in the above terms. 24.2.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE