Crl. Misc.No.M 21918 of 2010 # 1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAT AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc.No.M 21918 of 2010 Date of Decision:-23.09.2010 Raj Kumar @ Vikas. ......Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab & Another. ......Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab. Mr. Saurab Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent no.2-Complainant. *** JASWANT SINGH, J.(ORAL) Present petition under section 482 Cr.PC is for quashing of FIR No.459 dated 26.12.2007 under Sections 420, 379, 506 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code registered with Police Station Tripari, Patiala along with the consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 12.7.2010(Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties. In the FIR, respondent no.2-complainant Dev Raj Goyal Crl. Misc.No.M 21918 of 2010 # 2# had levelled allegations against the petitioner that he had asked him to supply 27 sets of water filters and spare parts. On this complainant along with his son took the above said 27 sets of water filters and spare parts in his Tata Sumo No.PB-31C-7780 for delivering the same to the petitioner at his place. After complainant got the goods loaded on the vehicle of the petitioner and asked for the payment of the same, petitioner along with his three accomplices took out the knives and put the same on the stomach of the complainant and gave threat to him whether he want money of his life. Upon notice of motion respondent no.2-complainant caused appearance through his Advocate. Learned State Counsel has filed reply by way of affidavit of DSP City-II, Patiala and on instructions from HC Manjit Singh stated that the challan has not been presented. Both the parties had stated that parties have compromised the matter and made request for quashing of FIR. In view of the same parties were directed to appear before the learned trial court with direction to the the trial court record the statements of the parties regarding the genuineness of the compromise and send a report in that regard. Report(Mark-A) in the shape of letter dated 13.9.2010 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala accompanied by photocopies of statements of complainant as well as accused persons and the zimni order passed by the trial court has been received wherein it is stated that the parties appeared before that court and suffered Crl. Misc.No.M 21918 of 2010 # 3# statements recorded separately before that court. Complainant in his statement has stated that he has compromised the matter with the accused persons and has no objection if the aforesaid FIR and all consequential proceedings are quashed against him. A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash an FIR disclosing the commission of non- compoundable offences. The relevant extracts read 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.” Similar views were expressed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abot v. State of Punjab 2008(4) SCC 582, the relevant extract of which is 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 Crl. Misc.No.M 21918 of 2010 # 4# 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.” Keeping in view the above settled legal position and taking into account the fact that both the parties have desired to live in peace and harmony and carry on with their lives without any ill will or rancour by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, it is evident that it is a fit case where there is no legal impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of the FIR in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.459 dated 26.12.2007 under Sections 420, 379, 506 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code registered with Police Station Tripari, Patiala and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE 23rd September, 2010 Vinay.