IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-36945 of 2010 Date of Decision:17.2.2011 Nishan Singh and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Gurveen H. Singh, Addl. 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 has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the criminal proceedings pending before Sh. S.K. Arora, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur emanating from the FIR No.140 dated 1.11.1997 under Sections 326/325/324/323/148/149 IPC Police Station Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur on the basis of compromise. The brief facts relevant in the present petition are that FIR No. 140 dated 1.11.1997 under Sections 326/325/324/323/148/149 IPC Police Station Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur, was got registered against both the parties on the basis of cross version given by them. In pursuance to the said FIR, investigation was complete and the trial Court framed charges against both the parties. As a consequent on completion of trial, the trial Court convicted both the sides on the basis of evidence on record for a sentence of one year each vide two separate impugned judgments dated 22.3.2006. The copies of the said judgments (Annexures P-2 and P-3) are placed on record. Thereafter, the parties went into an appeal before Court of CRM M-36945 of 2010 -2- Sessions, Hoshiarpur by filing separate appeals. However, during the pendency of the said appeals, the parties have entered into a compromise with the intervention of the respectable of the area. Compromise deed (Annexure P-4) has also been placed on record in this regard. 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. 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 CRM M-36945 of 2010 -3- 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.” Accordingly, notice of motion was issued and the parties were directed to be present in the Court in order to verify the genuineness of the compromise. As per the office report, respondent No.2 has since expired and respondent No.3 has been served. However, no one is present on behalf of respondent No.3. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Court where the appeals are pending to record the statements of the parties as also of all the legal representatives of respondent No.2, who has since died. In case, after recording the statements of the parties as above, the Appellate Court arrives at a conclusion that the compromise is genuine and the matter has been compromised voluntarily, the court shall be at liberty to compound the offence and pass appropriate orders accordingly. 17.2.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE