IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M- 6941 of 2010 Date of decision : 10.11.2010 Manohar Singh and Others ….. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another …… Respondents Present: Ms. Poonam Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. VPS Sidhu, AAG, Punjab with SI Sarabjit Singh, Economic Offences Wing, Kapurthala. Mr. Ravinder Singh, respondent No.2 in person. **** S.S. SARON, J. Respondent No.2 has appeared in person and has filed his affidavit which is taken on record. He has also attached a photocopy of his driving licence for the purpose of his identification. SI Sarabjit Singh who is present in Court has also identified respondent No.2-Ravinder Singh. In terms of the affidavit that has been filed by respondent No.2, it is stated by him that he has compromised the matter with Manohar Singh (petitioner No.1) and others on 7.2.2010 and he has no objection if the FIR is quashed. Ravinder Singh (respondent No.2) has stated that he has entered into a compromise of his own free will and desire and without any kind of CRM No. M- 6941 of 2010 [2] pressure or undue influence. It is stated that he has compromised the matter with all the accused and none remains. Heard counsel for the petitioners, State counsel and Ravinder Singh (respondent No.2) in person. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) for quashing of FIR No.233 dated 12.11.2009 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Sadar Phagwara, District Kapurthala for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC on the basis of compromise dated 7.2.2010 (Annexure P2). Ravinder Singh (respondent No.2) got the aforesaid FIR (Annexure P1) registered. It is alleged by the complainant that his father Darshan Singh @ Bhula died on 21.6.1984. He was survived by Kulwant Kaur, mother of the complainant/respondent No.2, four sons namely Manohar Singh (petitioner No.1), Sarabjit Singh, Jaswant Singh and Ravinder Singh (respondent No.2) and three daughters namely Paramjit Kaur, Baljit Kaur and Sarabjit Kaur. After the death of Darshan Singh @ Bhula, father of the complainant, they inherited his moveable and immoveable assets in equal share. However, with a view to grab the properties of the father of respondent No.2, his elder brother Manohar Singh (petitioner No.1), it is alleged, prepared a fake Will dated 7.12.1983 after 23-24 years of death of the father of the complainant in his favour. Manohar Singh (petitioner No.1) had prepared the Will in connivance with Ajit Singh (petitioner No.2) and Avtar Singh (petitioner No.3) and Piara Singh (petitioner No.4). The fake Will had been scribed by Piara Singh (petitioner No.4) and it was CRM No. M- 6941 of 2010 [3] witnessed by Ajit Singh (petitioner No.2) and Avtar Singh (petitioner No.3). On the basis of the said allegations, the FIR has been registered. It is stated that in terms of the compromise deed dated 7.2.2010 (Annexure P2), the matter has been amicably resolved. Ravinder Singh (respondent No.2) has submitted that he has got his due share and therefore he does not want to pursue the case. The dispute is between the brothers which has been amicably resolved between them. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances it would be just and expedient that the FIR is quashed. This is more so for the reasons that the challan in the case has not been filed and no proceedings at present are pending in the Court. In Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 582 it was observed by the Supreme Court as follows:- We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where by 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 the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach CRM No. M- 6941 of 2010 [4] to the matter based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law. Besides, a five Judges Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 has observed as follows:- “ The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted by distorted perceptions and is not a slave to anything, except to the caution and circumspection, the standards of which the Court sets before it, in exercise of such plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it while donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of justice. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320 (9) of the CrPC, or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the CrPC. 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 CrPC is sued 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 CRM No. M- 6941 of 2010 [5] 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 CrPC 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”. In view of the above, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No.233 dated 12.11.2009 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Sadar Phagwara, District Kapurthala for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and all subsequent and consequential proceedings arising therefrom shall stand quashed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE November 10, 2010 amit