IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-17361 of 2009 Date of Decision:21.3.2011 Joga Singh and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. J.B.S. Gill, Advocate for the respondents. **** 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.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.38 dated 10.5.1990 under Sections 326/323/148/149/325 IPC Police Station Hariana District Hoshiarpur and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The brief facts relevant in the present petition are that FIR No.38 dated 10.5.1990 under Sections 326/323/148/149/325 IPC Police Station Hariana District Hoshiarpur was got registered by one Jaswinder Singh. The petitioners were tried and convicted in the said FIR. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an appeal against their conviction before the appellate Court and the same is pending. During the pendency of the appeal, both the parties have entered into a compromise with the intervention of respectable of the village. Compromise deed (Annexure P-4) has already been placed on record. Report dated 24.7.2009 No.674 regarding the compromise has CRM M-17361 of 2009 -2- also been received from Surinder Singh Sahni, Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. It is submitted in the said report as under: “ I have the honour to submit that there were three injured namely Jaswinder Singh, Avter Singh and Sadhu Singh. Avtar Singh and Sadhu Singh have appeared before me and made separate statements having effected compromise with the accused party. Injured Jaswinder Singh is stated to have gone abroad. The FIR in question was registered on the statement made by Jaswinder Singh. In the absence of Jaswinder Singh, it cannot be said that entire matter has been compromised. However, there are statements made by Avtar Singh and Sadhu Singh that they have entered into compromise. From their statements, this Court is satisfied that compromise by them is voluntary. They were identified by Mrs. PK Gill Advocate. Original statements made by them are enclosed herewith.” Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 has already placed on record the affidavit of Jaswinder Singh vide order dated 4.10.2010 before this Court authenticating the compromise. As per the said affidavit, Jaswinder Singh has no objection if the petitioner is acquitted of the charges. Thus, there is no doubt that the matter has been comromised. The Apex Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 910 while quashing the FIR and all proceedings arising out of the same held that the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of CRM M-17361 of 2009 -3- law. In that case also the petitioners were convicted under Section 498-A IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment of 18 months. An appeal was filed against the conviction order and during the pendency of the appeal, the parties had settled their differences. However, they filed petition before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint as well as conviction order on account of the compromise. The High Court dismissed the same. Aggrieved, they challenged the same before the Apex Court. The Apex Court accepted the compromise and quashed the FIR and all the proceedings arising out of the same, as well as order of conviction. This Court in the case of Sukhwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 991 who relying upon the judgment of Khursheed and another v. State of U.P. And another, 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 495 allowed the petitioners to compound the offence under Section 452 IPC during the pendency of the appeal. 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 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 CRM M-17361 of 2009 -4- 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.” Moreover, the cross case has also been quashed vide Annexure P-5 on the basis of compromise. Taking into account the facts of the present case as well as the fact that the parties have compromised the matter with the intervention of the respectable of the village, it would be in the interest of justice to accept the compromise and to allow the parties to live amicably which shall reduce the friction in the society and promote peace and harmony. In view of the above and settled proposition of law, the parties are allowed to compound the offences. Accordingly, the parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Court where the appeal is pending. Thereafter, the Appellate Court shall pass appropriate orders in the light of permission granted by this Court to the parties to compound the offence. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed in the above terms. 21.3.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE