CRM No. M 13625 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 13625 of 2010 Date of decision: 25.05.2010 Sukhraj Vikaramdeep Singh and others ........ petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. K D S Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3 -.- 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. 219 dated 18.09.2007 under Section 452, 232, 324, 336, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code Police Station Shahkot, District Jalandhar which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 03.05.2010 having been arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. Separate statements of the complainant as well as the injured CRM No. M 13625 of 2010 2 witness-respondent No. 3 to the same effect have also been got recorded in the Court. In the present case, the present FIR was got registered by respondent No. 2 against the present petitioners. Respondent No. 3 is the injured witness. Both respondents No. 2 and 3 suffered their respective statements in Court today that with the intervention of friends, elders and respectables, the matter between the parties has been amicably compromised vide compromise dated 03.50.2010 and they have no objection if the present FIR as well as subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are 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:- “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 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:- “6. We need to emphasize that it is perhaps CRM No. M 13625 of 2010 3 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 dispute involved in the present case is personal nature. The compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainant as well as the injured witness have no objection if the said FIR is quashed. Taking into account the allegations, compromiset as well as the statements of the complainant, injured witness and the matter being totally personal in nature, 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 settled proposition of law. Accordingly, the aforesaid FIR and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 25.05.2010 mohan