CRM No. M 12838 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 12838 of 2010 Date of decision: 16.08.2010 Baljit Singh and others ........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Saurav Khurana, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State Mr. Arun Takhi, Advocate for respondent No. 2 -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 99 dated 13.08.2009 under Sections 420 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Kathunanagal, District, Amritsar (Rural) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 28.04.2010 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states at Bar that by mistake, CRM No. M 12838 of 2010 2 a wrong translation of the FIR has been placed on record. Accordingly, he may be allowed to place on record the correct copy of the same. His prayer is allowed. The correct copy of the FIR is accordingly taken on record. The petitioners were declared as proclaimed offenders. Subsequently, in pursuance to the order dated 21.05.2010 passed by this Court, they have since appeared before the trial Court and were released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds. Certified copies of the orders passed by the trial Court granting bail to the petitioners have been placed on record. The matter having been compromised, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise. A separate statement of complainant-Lakha Singh son of Kuldip Singh is also got recorded in the Court stating therein that with the intervention of the relatives of the area, the matter has been compromised and he has no objection if the aforesaid FIR is quashed. Affidavit of Lakha Singh has also been placed on record, wherein, he has stated that the misunderstanding between him and the accused party is got clarified and dispute resolved by the respectables of the locality. The compromise has been effected in order to maintain peace and harmony between the parties. The compromise has been effected out of his free will without any pressure from any quarter. 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 observed as under:- CRM No. M 12838 of 2010 3 “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 reduced 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 exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.” The Apex Court in the case of 'Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:- “6. We need to emphasize 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 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.” The present dispute is purely personal in nature. The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed. In view of the compromise, affidavit as well as the statement CRM No. M 12838 of 2010 4 made by the complainant in Court today, FIR No. 99 dated 13.08.2009 under Sections 420 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Kathunanagal, District, Amritsar (Rural) and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 16.08.2010 mohan