IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-12570 of 2010 Date of decision : 15.7.2010 Dara Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ….. Respondents Present : Mr. R.K. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. VPS Sidhu, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Mandeep Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2 with respondent No.2 in person. *** S.S. SARON, J. Reply by way of short affidavit of Mrs. Harbans Kaur (respondent No.2) filed in Court today along with Vakalatnama is taken on record. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner by way of the present petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeks quashing of FIR No.126 dated 3.12.2007 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Hariana, District Hoshiarpur for the offences under Sections 323 and 506 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Smt. Harbans Kaur (respondent No.2) is present in Court and is identified by her counsel Sh. Mandeep Kumar, Advocate. It is Crl. Misc. No. M-12570 of 2010 [2] submitted by her that she has amicably settled the matter with the petitioner. It is further stated by her that she is making her statement of her own free will and desire and without any kind of pressure or undue influence. Learned State counsel has submitted that in case the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties, the State would have no serious objection to the quashing of the FIR. It is also stated that the charges in the case have not been framed. The dispute between the parties is personal in nature. In Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 582 it was observed by the Supreme Court as follows:- We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where by 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 the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law. Crl. Misc. No. M-12570 of 2010 [3] Besides, a five Judges Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 has observed as follows:- “ The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted by distorted perceptions and is not a slave to anything, except to the caution and circumspection, the standards of which the Court sets before it, in exercise of such plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it while donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of justice. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320 (9) of the CrPC, or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the CrPC. 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 CrPC is sued 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 in a matrimonial discord, landlord- tenant matters, commercial transactions and Crl. Misc. No. M-12570 of 2010 [4] other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation”. In the present case, as per the affidavit filed by respondent No.2, the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. In view of the above, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No.126 dated 3.12.2007 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Hariana, District Hoshiarpur for the offences under Sections 323 and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and all subsequent and consequential proceedings arising therefrom shall stand quashed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE July 15, 2010 amit