IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-8951 of 2011 Date of Decision:18.4.2011 Sanjiv Kumar @ Rinku .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents And CRM M-8952 of 2011 Date of Decision:18.4.2011 Sanjiv Kumar @ Rinku .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Brar, A.A.G. Punjab. Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainant. **** 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) By this common order, CRM M-8951 of 2011 and CRM M- 8952 of 2011 shall be decided together wherein the prayer is for quashing of FIR No.94 dated 5.7.2006 under Sections 420,467,468,471,120-B IPC Police Station Majitha, District Amritsar as well as FIR No.6 dated 28.1.2011 under Section 174-A IPC Police Station Majitha, District Amritsar and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. Facts in brief are that FIR No.94 dated 5.7.2006 under Sections 420,467,468,471,120-B IPC Police Station Majitha, District Amritsar was got registered by the Complainant-Rajinder Singh. In the said FIR, CRM M-8951 of 2011 -2- petitioner has been declared proclaimed offender and FIR No.6 dated 28.1.2011 under Section 174-A IPC has been registered against the petitioner for his not appearing before the Court. However, due to the intervention of the respectable of the area, the matter has been compromised. An affidavit of the complainant has already been placed on record in the both the petitions. Respondent No.2 is present in the Court alongwith their respective counsel. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has placed on record the affidavit of respondent No.2/complainant authenticating the compromise. As per the said affidavit, respondents No.2 has no objection if the FIRs in question is quashed qua the petitioner. Taking into account that the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and the complainant and the petitioner is stated to have been now arrested and is in custody, the fact that petitioner has been declared proclaimed offender should not stand in the way to accept the compromise and quash the FIRs in the facts of the present case. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others reported as (1980) 1 SCC 63, held that:- “29. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the Cr.P.C. or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Sections 482 of the Cr.P.C.” While relying on the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, this Court in the case of Jobanjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others (Crl. Misc. No.10033 of 2009, decided on 29.7.2009) quashed the proceedings declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender by observing as under:- CRM M-8951 of 2011 -3- “ Keeping in view the enunciation of law as referred to above and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case, once the matter has been compromised between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by proceedings with the prosecution. Accordingly, order dated 23.12.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar (Annexure P-3) declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender, FIR No.38 dated 5.7.2000, registered at Police Station Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar, under Sections 323,325,341,148 and 149 IPC (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arigins therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner.” Similar view was also held by this Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and another (CRM No.M-1238 of 2007 decided on 29.1.2007). 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-8951 of 2011 -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.” In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008 (4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under:- “ We need to emphasise 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 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.” Taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties, the petitioner is stated to have been arrested and is in custody and the affidavit of respondent No.2 stating that he has no objection if the FIRs are quashed qua the petitioner, it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR in the interest of justice. Respondent No.2 has compromised the matter only with the petitioner. This Court in the case of Parambir Singh Gill v. Malkiat Kaur reported as 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 256 quashed the proceedings against one of the accused on the basis of compromise, whereas proceedings against CRM M-8951 of 2011 -5- the other co-accused were allowed to continue. Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed and FIR No.94 dated 5.7.2006 under Sections 420,467,468,471,120-B IPC Police Station Majitha, District Amritsar as well as FIR No.6 dated 28.1.2011 under Section 174-A IPC Police Station Majitha, District Amritsar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner only. The proceedings qua the other shall continue. A copy of this order be placed in the connected case. 18.4.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE