CRM No. M 24288 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 24288 of 2010 Date of decision: 31.08.2010 Makhan Singh and another ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for for the petitioners Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State Mr. Tribhuwan Singla, Advocate for respondent No. 2 - complainant -.- 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.233 dated 02.10.2009 under sections 420,467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, Police Station City Barnala (Annexure P-1) which was got registered at the behest of respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. A separate statement of complainant-Mukesh Kumar, who is CRM No. M 24288 of 2010 2 Branch Manager of respondent No. 2 - Bank, is also got recorded in the Court, stating therein that the matter has been compromised and he is authorised to enter into compromise with the petitioners. A resolution authorising him to enter into the compromise has been passed. As per the complainant, the total amount involved was `4,92,000/-. Out of which, a bank draft amounting to `4,83,000/- has been received by the complainant and balance amount i.e. `9,000/- has also been received by him in cash in Court today. According to him, the entire loan amount has been repaid by the petitioners and nothing is outstanding towards them. He has no objection if the aforesaid FIR is quashed. Learned counsel for the complainant-bank has pointed out that there is some discrepancy in the name of the Bank as scribed on the demand draft and as such liberty may be granted to revive the present petition if the aforesaid demand draft is not encashed. However, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it will be the duty of the petitioners to get the demand draft encashed from the concerned Bank. 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 CRM No. M 24288 of 2010 3 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.” Since the entire loan amount has already been received by the complainant bank and the complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the above settled proposition of law. Accordingly, FIR No.233 dated 02.10.2009 under Sections 420,467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, Police Station City Barnala (Annexure P-1) and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. However, the complainant-bank shall have liberty to revive CRM No. M 24288 of 2010 4 the present petition by moving an application, if the demand draft is not encashed, in accordance with law. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 31.08.2010 mohan