IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : August 24, 2009. Crl. Misc. No. M-23119 of 2009 (O/M). Jagraj Pal @ Jaji son of Sh. Sewak Dass Mahant, and others, all residents of Village Sekhan, Tehsil and District Barnala. ...... Petitioners . Versus. State of Punjab, and another. ..... Respondents . Crl. Misc. No. M-16516 of 2009 (O/M). Mandeep Singh @ Jimmy son of Sh. Babu Singh, resident of Village Sekhan, Tehsil and District Barnala. ...... Petitioner . Versus. State of Punjab, and another. ..... Respondents . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. B.S. Kathuria, Advocate, for the petitioners (in both the petitions) . Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, A.A.G. Punjab, for the respondent-State. Mr. Kushaldeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate, for the respondent No. 2-complainant (in both the petitions). AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). Notice of motion. On asking of the Court, Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, A.A.G. Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1-State. Mr. Kushaldeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2-complainant. Reply by way of affidavit of complainant-Kulwinder Singh son of Nachhattar Singh, has been taken on record. Criminal Misc. No. M-23119 of 2009 . By this order, I propose to dispose of Crl. Misc. No. M-23119 of 2009 Jagraj Pal @ Jaji and others Versus State of Punjab and another, and Crl. Misc. No. M-16516 of 2009 Mandeep Singh @ Jimmy Versus State of Punjab and another. Counsel for the petitioners contends that these petitions arise out of the same F.I.R. and common compromise has been entered into between all the petitioners and the complainant-Kulwinder Singh. He further contends that the F.I.R. No. 31, dated 11.05.2009, under Sections 379/356/323/506/148/149 I.P.C., Police Station Barnala, District Barnala, was registered at the basis of the statement of complainant Kulwinder Singh, who has been impleaded as respondent No. 2. During the pendency of the same, due to intervention of the respectables and well wishers of the parties, a compromise dated 16.05.2009. According to the said compromise, it has been amicably resolved between the parties that there would be no heart burning between them and there is no other grudge left out and they have forgotten and forgiven each others. In view of the compromise, counsel for the petitioners prays for quashing of the F.I.R. in question and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 2-complainant submits that as the parties to the dispute have compromised the matter, the complainant has no objection to the quashing of the F.I.R. in question and all proceedings arising therefrom. Affidavit dated 16.05.2009, which has been placed on record as Annexure -P-3, states that Nachhattar Singh, who is the father of the complainant, also does not have any objection to quashing of the F.I.R. in question and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The complainant-Kulwinder Singh is present in the Court (as -2- Criminal Misc. No. M-23119 of 2009 . has been identified by his counsel). He states that he has no objection, if the F.I.R. in question alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed in the light of compromise, which has been entered into between the parties. He further states that he has forgiven the petitioners and does not want to pursue the matter any further. Counsel for the respondent No. 1-State on instructions from H.C. Jarnail Singh, Police Station Sadar, Barnala, also identified the complainant-Kulwinder Singh, who states that in the light of compromise, the State also does not have any objection to the quashing of F.I.R. in question and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. In view of the above, where a compromise has been entered into between the parties, copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure-P- 2 and further in view of the fact that affidavit has been filed in response to the petitions by complainant-Kulwinder Singh son of Nachhattar Singh in the Court, accepting the compromise and himself appearing and stating that he does not have any objection to quashing of the F.I.R. in question and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, the matter having been amicably resolved, it would be in the interest of justice that the F.I.R. in question and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. Reliance can be made upon the Larger Bench Judgment of this Court in the case Kulvinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another 2007(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1052, while discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise, by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non-compoundable offences, has held as under :- -3- Criminal Misc. No. M-23119 of 2009 . “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 F.I.R. No. 31, dated 11.05.2009, under Sections 379/356/323/506/148/149 I.P.C., Police Station Barnala, District Barnala, and all other consequent proceedings arising there from are quashed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE August 24, 2009. sjks. -4-