CRM No. M 30296 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 30296 of 2010 Date of decision: 07.12.2010 Chand Singh and another .......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Madan Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. P S Paul, DAG, Punjab for the respondent- State Mr. Rajwant Singh Chahal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 -.- 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. 281 dated 25.09.2008 under Section 406, 420, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, P S Sadar Jalandhar, District Jalandhar (Annexure P1) which was got registered by respondent No. 2- Sukhraj Singh on the basis of compromise dated 04.05.2010. Copy of which has been appended with the file as annexure P8. In the present case, FIR was got registered by respondent No. 2. Compromise has been entered into by Kulwinder Kaur Padda-respondent No. 3 who is the attorney of respondent No. 2. Copy of the power of CRM No. M 30296 of 2010 2 attorney given by respondent No. 2 in favour of respondent No. 3 is also placed on record. Respondent No. 3 is present in Court along with his counsel. She has also filed reply by way of affidavit in Court today, stating therein, that she has been appoined as attorney of Sukhraj Singh Dhillon-respondent No. 2 to effect the compromise in the said FIR and the matter has been compromised vide compromise deed dated 04.05.2010 and the said Sukhraj Singh Dhillon does not wish to pursue the said FIR. In the present case, the business relations amongst the parties became sour, resulting into filing of the present FIR. Now, the matter has been amicably resolved as per compromise deed dated 04.05.2010 (P8). 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 CRM No. M 30296 of 2010 3 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.” Taking into account the allegations, facts of the present case as well as affidavit of respondent No. 3, who is attorney of respondent No. 2, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in the above settled proposition of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 281 dated 25.09.2008 under Section 406, 420, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, P S Sadar Jalandhar, District Jalandhar (Annexure P1) and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 07.12.2010 mohan