Crl. Misc. No.M-26989 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-26989 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22.11.2010 Amit Kumar and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate with Ms. Sonal Datta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S. Paul, D.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. Ram Lal Luthra, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** 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) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No.40 dated 27.04.2004 under Sections 323, 342, 506, 477, 148 and 149 IPC registered at Police Station Division No.4, Ludhiana on the basis of compromise. The FIR was registered against the present petitioners by respondent No.2-Kamal Kumar son of Mangat Ram. Petitioner no.2 and respondent No.2 are the real brothers. Respondent no.2 filed suit for specific performance against petitioner No.2 which was decreed by the trial Court. The appeal filed by petitioner No.2 was dismissed and against the impugned judgment and decree, petitioner No.2 preferred Regular Second Appeal No.1512 of 2010. The same was disposed of in view of the Crl. Misc. No.M-26989 of 2010 2 compromise entered into between the petitioner No.2 and respondent No.2, wherein, both the parties were agree to withdraw their respective criminal cases against each other. The joint statement of respondent No.2, as well as, his brother Ram Kumar was recorded in the abovesaid RSA. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant states that he has instructions to state that respondent No.2 has no objection, if the FIR is quashed. The matter having been compromised as is evident from the copies of affidavit P-3 and compromise P-4 placed on record and the statement made by learned counsel affirming the said compromise, it is 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 the FIR. The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. 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 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 vs. State of Punjab Crl. Misc. No.M-26989 of 2010 3 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.” The contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners are not disputed. Moreover, taking into account that earlier the R.S.A filed before this Court was disposed of on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties, as well as, the statement made by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that respondent No.2 has no objection, if the FIR is quashed, it would be just and proper to quash the FIR for peace, harmony and thus allow the parties to move on in life. Moreover, the dispute is between the real brothers. The same has been compromised. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.40 dated 27.04.2004 under Sections 323, 342, 506, 477, 148 and 149 IPC registered at Police Station Division No.4, Ludhiana on the basis of compromise is hereby quashed in the interest of justice. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 22.11.2010 JUDGE gurpreet