CRM No. M 38293 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 38293 of 2010 Date of decision: 11.02.2011 Jagdeep Singh and others ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. J S Brar, AAG, Punjab for the respondent - State Mr. Harpreet Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2 - complainant -.- 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? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 20 dated 09.03.2006 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, P S Amargarh, District Sangrur (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 09.12.2010 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. Vide order dated 24.12.2010, the parties were directed to CRM No. M 38293 of 2010 2 appear before the trial Court on 05.01.2011. The trial Court was also directed to record a finding whether the parties have arrived at a volunteer compromise or not. In pursuance to the same, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Malerkotla, vide letter dated 15.01.2011 has forwarded his finding stating therein that the parties have entered into compromise voluntarily. Moreover, the complainant is also present in Court today and has filed his affidavit, stating therein, that he has no objection if the said FIR 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:- “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 advisable that in disputes where the question involved CRM No. M 38293 of 2010 3 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 said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed. Taking into account the allegations, compromise dated 09.12.2010 as well as report of the Judicial Magistrate, Malerkotla, verifying the genuineness of the said compromise and affidavit of the complainant, 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. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 20 dated 09.03.2006 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, P S Amargarh, District Sangrur (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 11.02.2011 mohan