Crl. Misc.No.M 22034 of 2010 # 1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAT AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc.No.M 22034 of 2010 Date of Decision:-27.10.2010 Rakesh Kundra & Ors. ......Petitioners. Versus State of Punjab & Anr. ......Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. Atul Jain, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab. *** JASWANT SINGH, J. Prayer is under section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of FIR No.103 dated 20.3.2010 under Sections 308, 342, 506, 323, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code registered with Police Station Division No.6, Jalandhar on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties. In the FIR, complainant Jaswinder Singh had levelled allegations against the petitioners that on 19.3.2010 complainant was present at his shop and at about 3.20 PM he received a telephone call Crl. Misc.No.M 22034 of 2010 # 2# from Manny his Sales Manager who had some verbal altercation with Kundra Sweet Shop's person and called the complainant there. When Complainant reached there, he was also dragged by the petitioners inside the shop who were armed by deadly weapons like Pattiwala Khurpa and Iron Rod and inflicted injuries on the person of the complainant. While issuing notice of motion parties were directed to appear before the learned Illaqa Magistrate for getting their statements recorded in terms of the compromise and submit its report regarding the genuineness of the compromise. Report (Mark-A) in the shape of letter dated 27.09.2010 of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jalandhar has been received wherein it is stated that the parties appeared before that court and suffered statements recorded separately before that court. Complainant in his statement has stated that he has compromised the matter with the accused persons-petitioners and have no objection if the aforesaid FIR and all consequential proceedings are quashed against them. From the report submitted it is evident that the dispute between the petitioners-accused and the complainant has been amicably resolved by entering into compromise wherein the complainant has stated that he has no objection if the present FIR against the petitioners- accused is quashed. Learned State Counsel on instructions from SI Harbans Singh submits that challan in the present case is not presented and is unable to raise any serious objection in view of the aforesaid Crl. Misc.No.M 22034 of 2010 # 3# compromise wherein the parties have deposed on the basis of the compromise and since the respondent no.2 is not willing to pursue the cross case in the present FIR. It is further submitted that challan in the present case is yet to be presented. 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 Crl. Misc.No.M 22034 of 2010 # 4# 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.” 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.103 dated 20.3.2010 under Sections 308, 342, 506, 323, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code registered with Police Station Division No.6, Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed against all the petitioners. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE 27th October, 2010 Vinay