IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-944 of 2010 Date of Decision:31.3.2010 Sardool Singh and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Abhishek Chautala, A.A.G. Punjab. **** 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) The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved for quashing of FIR No.160 dated 6.9.2008 registered under Sections 324/323/506/201 IPC at Police Station Bassi Pathanan, and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The FIR in question was registered by Petitioner No.1- complainant. Petitioner No.2 is the wife of petitioner No.1 whereas petitioner No.3 is the accused in the said FIR. All are residents of the same village. As per the allegations made in the FIR, there was fight between petitioner No.1-complainant and petitioner No.3-accused. The motive was that petitioner No.3-accused took household goods of Rs.2000/- from petitioner No.1-complainant on debt, which he refused to return. However, the matter has been compromised. A separate statement of petitioner No.1- complainant authenticating the compromise has also been recorded in the Court today. As per the statement, the said compromise is without any CRM M-944 of 2010 -2- pressure and out of his own sweet will. Further, as per the averments made in the petition, compromise and affidavit, petitioner No.1-complainant has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. 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 v. State of Punjab 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 CRM M-944 of 2010 -3- 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.” In view of the compromise effected between the parties and taking into account that the dispute is personal in nature, it is a 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 FIR in the interest of justice to promote peace and harmony. Thus, in view of the above and well settled proposition of law, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.160 dated 6.9.2008 registered under Sections 324/323/506/201 IPC at Police Station Bassi Pathanan and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. 31.3.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE