Crl. Misc. No.M-148 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-148 of 2011 Date of Decision: 28.02.2011 Amarjit Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Neelam, A.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. Ajay Singh, Advocate for the complainant. ***** 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. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.203 dated 13.10.2000 registered at Police Station Bhadson, District Patiala under Sections 447, 379, 427, 435, 506/34 IPC, as well as, subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The facts, in short, are that on the basis of statement made by Parminder Kaur-respondent No.2, the FIR, in question, was registered against the present petitioners. Though, the respondents No.2 had levelled allegations against many persons, the police had presented the challan in Crl. Misc. No.M-148 of 2011 2 the Court only against the present petitioners. Thereafter, the matter has been compromised with the intervention of common friends and respectables of the locality. The compromise deed, in this regard, was also reduced into writing on 03.12.2010 and translated copy of the same is placed on record as P-2. In pursuance to the said compromise, both the parties have decided not to initiate any litigation against each other in future. On 11.02.2011, the complainant/respondent No.2 was present in the Court along with her son and was duly represented through her counsel. She filed her affidavit dated 12.01.2011 admitting the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties and also stated therein that she has no objection, if the FIR and further proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. On the said date, Avtar Singh, who is stated to be the brother-in-law of complainant/respondent No.2, had also appeared in Court, in person. He vehemently opposed the said compromise and had submitted that the said compromise entered into between the parties will affect his right in the joint property as co-sharers. Upon which, the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for time to file an additional affidavit of the complainant refuting the said claim of Avtar Singh. The matter was, accordingly, adjourned to 28.02.2011. On 28.02.2011, the respondent No.2/complainant was once again present in the Court along with her son and has filed her affidavit dated 13.02.2011. The stand of respondent No.2/complainant, as per the affidavit is, that the land, where the alleged incident as referred in the FIR had taken place in Village Chaswal had fallen to the share of the husband of the deponent in the family partition during his life time. After his death in 1996, it was the deponent who was in possession of the said land. At that time, both the sons of the deponent, namely, Gurvinder Singh and Davinder Singh were minor. It was further stated by her in the affidavit that Crl. Misc. No.M-148 of 2011 3 in the meantime, both her sons attained majority and are also not interested in any litigation with the petitioners and as such, she along with her sons, have decided to compromise the matter with the petitioners. It is also stated therein that they all of them want peace and do not want any litigation with the petitioners and that the said compromise was in her interest and in the interest of her children. Mr. Avtar Singh is once again present in the Court. He repeated his submissions and stated that the said compromise will affect his civil rights. However, he has not been able to show as to how the settlement in the criminal case will affect his claim or right in any civil litigation pending between him or anyone else. The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. 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 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.” In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab Crl. Misc. No.M-148 of 2011 4 2008(4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under :- “ We need to emphasise 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.” In the present case, Parminder Kaur is the complainant. She has compromised the matter. This Court is satisfied that the said compromise is genuine and the same has been entered into without any pressure. Parminder Kaur is a widow. She has lost faith and trust in Avtar Singh, who is her brother-in-law and was earlier looking after her land. In fact, it was stated by her that even though, Avtar Singh was cultivating the said land all this while, he did not pay even a single penny towards the same and she was facing acute financial crises on this account. The dispute, in the present case, is qua the present petitioners and respondent No.2/complainant-Parminder Kaur. Respondent no.2 does not wish to pursue the case. Avtar Singh has no business to pressurize her not to enter into the compromise. In fact, the said compromise will allow her to lead her life peacefully and save her time, energy and money which was being wasted all this while as she had to make various visits to the Court, paying the lawyers and fighting the battle all by herself. Keeping in view the dispute in the FIR, the compromise arrived at between the parties, the affidavit of the complainant dated 13.02.2011 Crl. Misc. No.M-148 of 2011 5 filed in this Court, as well as, the interest of the respondent-complainant, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.203 dated 13.10.2000 registered at Police Station Bhadson, District Patiala under Sections 447, 379, 427, 435, 506/34 IPC, as well as, subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. However, it is made clear that the said compromise will have no bearing on the civil rights of Avtar Singh i.e her brother-in-law or other family members or any other civil litigation pending between them and the petitioner and respondent herein. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 28.02.2011 JUDGE gurpreet