IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No. M- 27133 of 2010 Date of decision: 28.10.2010 Swaran Kaur ......Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr. S.S.Rangi, Advocate, , for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Rawat, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr.H.S.Tuli, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** ORDER The present petition has been filed on behalf of petitioner Swaran Kaur for quashing of FIR No. 127 dated 22.4.2001 under Sections 420/406 IPC registered at Police Station City Rajpura, District Patiala and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 29th July, 2010 annexed as Annexure P-3 with the petition. Notice of motion was issued on 20th September, 2010. In response thereto, reply by way of affidavit has been filed by complainant Manjit Kaur which is placed on record. In the affidavit, it has been mentioned that the matter has been compromised between the parties and she has no objection in quashing of the said FIR as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Crl.Misc. No. M- 27133 of 2010 [2] Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have compromised the dispute during the pendency of the appeal before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala. The petitioner was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura vide order dated 28.4.2010 under Section 420 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The petitioner filed an appeal against the above-said judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.4.2010, which is pending in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties have compromised the matter with the intervention of respectables of the area. As per terms of the compromise (Annexure P-3) as well as reply filed in the form of affidavit, complainant Manjit Kaur does not want to pursue the case against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the judgments of this Court reported in Kulwinder Singh. v. State of Punjab 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 and Sukhwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab 2008(3) R.C.R.(Crl. 991 in support of his contentions. In Sukhwinder Singh's case (supra), the accused were convicted under Sections 452/323/506/354 IPC and appeal was pending and during the pendency of the appeal, the parties entered into a compromise and the Court granted permission to compound the offence under Section 452 IPC. Learned counsel for the respondents has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties. Crl.Misc. No. M- 27133 of 2010 [3] In this case, FIR No. 127 dated 22.4.2001 under Sections 420/406 IPC was registered against the petitioner on the basis of complaint made by Manjit Kaur Sarpanch. Charge was framed against the petitioner. She was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as mentioned above. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala which is still pending there. During the pendency of the appeal, the matter has been compromised between the parties which was reduced into writing on 29th July, 2010. The compromise is annexed as Annexure P-3 with the petition, wherein respondent No.2 has specifically mentioned that the matter has been compromised and she has no objection in quashing of the said FIR and other proceedings arising therefrom. Respondent No.2 is also present in Court and has filed reply by way of affidavit by stating that she does not want to pursue any litigation against the petitioner. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, it would be in the interest of the parties and to maintain peace in the society. Moreover, there is no legal impediment to grant permission to the parties to compound the offence. In a similar case, where the accused were convicted and during the pendency of the appeal, the parties had compromised the matter and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khursheed and another v. State of U.P. And another 2007(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 495 granted permission to compound the offence under Section 325 IPC. Moreover, the scope of quashing of proceedings on the basis of compromise in exercise Crl.Misc. No. M- 27133 of 2010 [4] of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are wide and even in non- compoundable offences, the larger Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that the Court has wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under section 320 Cr.P.C. in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice. In view of the settled proposition of law and the fact that the parties have compromised the matter, there is no legal impediment to grant permission to the parties to compound the offence. Accordingly the parties are allowed to compound the offence under which they have been convicted and sentenced. Thus, the present petition is allowed and the petitioners are directed to appear before the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala on 10.11.2010 where the appeal is pending, who shall pass an appropriate order in the light of the permission having been granted to the parties to compound the offence. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE October 28, 2010. raghav