IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-7428 of 2010 Date of Decision:27.4.2010 Gurlal Singh and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Rahul Chhatwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. N.K. Manchanda, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 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.130 dated 3.8.2004 registered under Sections 324/34 IPC and 326 IPC (added lateron) at Police Station City Kotkapura, Faridkot and setting aside the judgment dated 3.10.2008 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot as well as subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The brief facts relevant in the present petition are that the FIR in question was registered by respondent No.2-complainant Jand Singh son of Amrik Singh. The petitioners were convicted by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot vide judgment dated 3.10.2008. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an appeal against their conviction before the appellate Court. During the pendency of the appeal, both the parties entered into a compromise with the intervention of respectable of the village. The compromise deed has also been placed on record as Annexure P-3. A separate statement of respondent No.2/complainant authenticating the CRM M-7428 of 2010 -2- compromise has also been recorded in the Court today stating that he has entered into the said compromise without any pressure and out of his own sweet will. He has no objection if the petitioners are acquitted of the charge. The Apex Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 910 while quasahing the FIR and all proceedings arising out of the same held that the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. In that case also the petitioners were convicted under Section 498-A IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment of 18 months. An appeal was filed against the c onviction order and during the pendency of the appeal, the parties had settled their differences. However, they filed petition before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint as well as conviction order on account of the compromise. The High Court dismissed the same. Aggrieved, they challenged the same before the Apex Court. The Apex Court accepted the compromise and quashed the FIR and all the proceedings arising out of the same, as well as order of conviction. This Court in the case of Sukhwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 991 who relying upon the judgment of Khursheed and another v. State of U.P. And another, 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 495 allowed the petitioners to compound the offence under Section 452 IPC during the pendency of the appeal. 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 CRM M-7428 of 2010 -3- 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 thetechnicalities of the law.” Taking into account that the parties have compromised the matter with the intervention of the respectable of the village, it would be in the interest of justice to accept the compromise and to allow the parties to live amicably which shall reduce the friction in the society and promote peace and harmony. In view of the settled proposition of law, the parties are allowed to compound the offences. Accordingly, the parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Court where the appeal is pending. Thereafter, the Appellate Court shall pass appropriate orders in athe light of permission granted by this Court to the parties to compound the offence. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. 27.4.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE