CRM M 10231 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- Date of decision: 16.05.2011 1. CRM M 10231 of 2011 Surjit Singh and another ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondents 2. CRM M 10899 of 2011 Joginder Singh and others .......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate for Mr. SS Salar, Advocate for the petitioners (CRM M 10231 of 2011) Ms Maninderpreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners (CRM M 10899 of 2011) Ms Neelam, AAG, Punjab for the respondent State Ms Maninderpreet Kaur, Advocate for respondent No. 2 (CRM M 10231 of 2011) Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate for Mr. SS Salar, Advocate for respondent No. 2 and 3 (CRM M 10899 of 2011) -.- 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? CRM M 10231 of 2011 2 Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) Both the aforesaid petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the same arise out of the same FIR. This is a case of version and cross version. In CRM M 10899 of 2011, the petitioners prayed for quashing of the FIR No. 21 dated 17.02.2011 under Section 341, 323, 334, 325 IPC, P S Ahmedgarh District Sangrur, whereas, in CRM M 10231, the petitioners prayed for quashing of a cross case registered under Section 341, 323, 334, 325 IPC in the said FIR on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, vide compromise deed dated 03.03.2011, copy thereof has been placed on record as Annexure P2. In the present case, a brawl took place between the parties at the spur of the moment. The aforesaid FIR was got registered by respondent No. 2 – Inderjit Singh son of Surjit Singh. Respondent No. 3 Surjit Singh got injury in the said incident. However, lateron, a cross case was also registered in the said FIR against Surjit Singh and Inderjit Singh (petitioners in CRM M 10231 of 2011) on the statement of Joginder Singh (respondent No. 2 in CRM M 10231 of 2011). Complainant-Inderjit Singh, Injured-Surjit Singh and Joginder Singh, on whose statement cross version was recorded, are present in Court along with their counsels. They have filed their respective replies by way of affidavits, stating therein, that they have amicably comprised the matter and have no objection if the said FIR as well as cross case is quashed. 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:- CRM M 10231 of 2011 3 “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 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 emphasized 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 utilized 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.” Taking into account the allegations, compromise as well as affidavits of complainant - Inderjit Singh, injured-Surjit Singh and Joginder Singh - complainant in the cross case, 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 said settled proposition of law. CRM M 10231 of 2011 4 Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 21 dated 17.02.2011 under Section 341, 323, 334, 325 IPC, P S Ahmedgarh District Sangrur as well as the cross case registered under Section 341, 323, 334, 325 IPC in the said FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. A photocopy of the order be placed on the connected file. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 16.05.2011 mohan