CRM M 970 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- Date of decision: 07.04.2011 1. CRM M 970 of 2011 Amandeep Singh and others ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondents 2. CRM M 9804 of 2011 Gurvinder Singh and others ........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. G S Kaura, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. J S Brar, DAG, Punjab Mr. R S Jhand, 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 Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) Both the aforesaid petitions are being decided by this common order as the same arise out of the same FIR. In CRM M 970 of 2011, the petitioners have sought for CRM M 970 of 2011 2 quashing of FIR No. 69 dated 31.08.2010 under Section 452, 326, 324, 343 IPC, Police Station Arnniwala, District Ferozepur, registered on the statement of Gurvinder Singh-respondent No.2 , whereas, in CRM M 9804 of 2011, the petitioners have sought for quashing of cross version registered vide rapat No. 18 dated 31.08.2010 under Section 323, 324, 34 IPC (later on Section 308 IPC added) on the statement of Amandeep Singh in the aforesaid FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 16.12.2010 . In CRM M 970 of 2011, Respondent No. 2 got lodged the aforesaid FIR against the petitioners, alleging therein, that the accused attacked on the respondent and his family members at night with their respective weapons. However, in CRM M 9804 of 2011, on the statement of Amandeep Singh, a cross case was also registered against the petitioners. Now, the matter has been compromised between the parties and they do not want to pursue the litigation. Complainants as well as injured (Kaushalya Devi) are present in Court today along with their counsel. Affidavits of Gurvinder Singh and Amandeep Singh complainant in version and cross version have already been filed. Affidavit of the injured has also been filed in Court today. As per the complainants and injured, the matter has been compromised and they do not wish to pursue the litigation. 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. CRM M 970 of 2011 3 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 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.” The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The parties and injured have no objection if the said FIR is quashed. Taking into account the allegations, compromise as well as affidavits of the complainants and injured, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR and subsequent proceedings CRM M 970 of 2011 4 arising out of the same in view of the above said settled proposition of law. Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed and FIR No. 69 dated 31.08.2010 under Section 452, 326, 324, 343 IPC, Police Station Arnniwala, District Ferozepur as well as the cross version registered vide rapat No. 18 dated 31.08.2010 under Section 323, 324, 34 IPC (later on Section 308 IPC added) on the statement of Amandeep Singh in the aforesaid FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. Photo copy of the order be placed on the connected file. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 07.04.2011 mohan