Crl. Misc. No.M-13928 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-13928 of 2010 Date of Decision: 21.05.2010 Darbara Singh & others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Bikramjit Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. N.S. Dadwal, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4. ***** 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) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No.142 dated 24.07.2005 under Sections 452, 323, 148 and 149 IPC 1860, Police Station Jhabhal, District Tarn Tarn later on added Section 325 IPC and report under Section 173 Cr.PC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The FIR in question was registered by respondent No.2- Jaswinder Singh son of Ranga Singh against the present petitioners. Respondents no.3 and 4 are the injured persons in this case. The facts of the present case are that the petitioners and respondent No.2 are close relatives and there was some property dispute within the family. Due to the Crl. Misc. No.M-13928 of 2010 2 intervention of the respectables, a compromise has been effected between the parties. The compromise deed has been placed on record as P-3. The affidavits of respondents No.2 to 4 have also been placed on record authenticating the compromise. Separate statements of respondents No.2 to 4 have also been recorded in the Court today. As per the compromise/affidavits, respondents No.2 to 4 have no objection, if the FIR in question, is quashed. Statement of the petitioner-Darbara Singh has also been recorded in the Court, wherein, he undertakes to withdraw the complaint filed by him against respondents No.2 to 4 and that he will be bound by terms and conditions of the compromise. It is further stated by him that the said compromise was entered into without any pressure and out of their own sweet will. The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. 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 vs. State of Punjab Crl. Misc. No.M-13928 of 2010 3 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 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.” Taking into account the allegation in the FIR, the fact that the parties are close relative, the compromise, the affidavits of respondents No.2 to 4 and the statements made before this Court authenticating compromise, 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. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.142 dated 24.07.2005 under Sections 452, 323, 148 and 149 IPC 1860, Police Station Jhabhal, District Tarn Tarn later on added Section 325 IPC and report under Section 173 Cr.PC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 21.05.2010 JUDGE mohan