IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-15268 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 09.09.2010 Surjit Singh @ Ranjit Singh ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Punjab and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Jasbir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.R.S.Rawat, A.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Ms.Rajvinder Prince, Advocate, for respondent No.2. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of the FIR No.42 dated 16.4.2006 (Annexure p-1) registered under Sections 336, 447, 427, 506, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act at Police Station Bhikhiwind, District Amritsar (now Tarn Taran) and order dated 29.3.2010 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patti and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise which has been entered into between the parties during the pendency of the trial proceedings. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners who are accused in the above-mentioned FIR and the complainant-respondent No.2- Angrej Singh son of Harbhajan Singh are residents of the same village. There was a dispute between them with regard to the possession of the Crl.Misc.No.M-15268 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Panchayat land. With the intervention of the respectables and Panchayat of the village Akbarpura, the matter has been amicably resolved and the parties have entered into a compromise, according to which possession has been handed over to Angrej Singh-complainant in the FIR. In the light of the compromise dated 8.8.2009 which has been placed on record as Annexure P-2, counsel for the petitioners prays that the above-mentioned FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom be quashed. In response to the notice having been issued, complainant- respondent No.2 has filed reply in the form of an affidavit wherein he has admitted the factum of compromise dated 8.8.2009. Complainant- respondent No.2-Angrej Singh is present in Court and has been identified by his counsel as well as Sub Inspector Jagdish Raj, Police Station Bhikhiwind. He states that as a matter of fact, with the intervention of the Panchayat, the matter has been compromised vide compromise deed, Annexure P-2. He has been put back in possession of the land in dispute for which the fight had taken place and as of now, there is no dispute between him and the petitioners. He further states that he does not have any objection to the prayer made by the petitioners for quashing of the FIR. In view of the statement made by the complainant who is present in Court and has been duly identified, the present petition deserves to be allowed. A Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, while discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise, Crl.Misc.No.M-15268 of 2010 (O&M) -3- in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non-compoundable offence(s), has held as under:- “28. 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 in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation. 29. 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.” Therefore, in view of the discussion above, since the parties have amicably settled the matter, which is otherwise in the interest of justice and appears to have been effected to promote peace and harmony amongst the parties, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned FIR No.42 dated 16.4.2006 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 336, 447, Crl.Misc.No.M-15268 of 2010 (O&M) -4- 427, 506, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act at Police Station Bhikhiwind, District Amritsar (now Tarn Taran) and order dated 29.3.2010 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patti and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. September 09, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE