CRM No. M 31413 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 31413 of 2009 Date of decision: 07.01.2010 Harminder Singh and others ........ petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. B S Bhalla, Advocate for for the petitioners Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, DAG, Punjab for the respondent- State Mr. N K Awasti,, Advocate for the complainant -.- 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 FIR No. 98 dated 02.04.2007 under Sections 457, 380, 447, 506, 511, 342, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code (later on added Sections 395 and 498 of IPC) at Police Station Jagraon, District Ludhiana against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise having been arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. A separate statement CRM No. M 31413 of 2009 2 of the complainant has also been recorded in the Court to the same effect. Reply by way of affidavit of respondent No. 2 (complainant) has also been filed. The same is taken on record. It would be relevant to note the facts of the present case. As per the FIR, Amarjit Singh son of the complainant Manga Singh had purchased one plot in Agwar Gujra near Kacha Malak Road Jagraon. The complainant used to look after the aforesaid plot. But on 01.04.2007, Harjinder Singh son of Kartar Singh resident of Charcharari, Gurmeet Singh son of Bant Singh, resident of Dalla, Jagdev Singh son of Joginder Singh, Harpreet Singh son of Joginder Singh, residents of Chungi No. 5 Jagraon, Kulwant Singh son of Kuldeep Singh resident of Agwar Gujra Jagraon, Rajwinder Singh son of Joginder Singh, resident of Agwar Lopo and others armed with dangs jumped over the walls and broke open the door of the plot. Thereafter, they demolished the boundary walls of the aforesaid plot and took away the malba after giving out threats. The motive was the dispute over the said plot. The same dispute was personal in nature. It is stated that the matter has since been compromised with the intervention of the respectables of the village. The complainant has compromised the matter and without any pressure from any one. To this effect, a separate statement of the complainant has also been got recorded in the Court. Affidavit of the complainant has also been placed on record. 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:- “The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non CRM No. M 31413 of 2009 3 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 CRM No. M 31413 of 2009 4 technicalities of the law.” The present is a case which is purely personal in nature and the compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed. Keeping the Criminal proceedings alive will be a futile exercise. Keeping in mind the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh as well as the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot (supra) as also the facts of the present case, the compromise deserves to be accepted. Thus, it would be in the interest of justice to quash FIR No. 98 dated 02.04.2007 under Sections 457, 380, 447, 506, 511, 342, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code (later on added Sections 395 and 498 of IPC) at Police Station Jagraon, District Ludhiana against the present petitioners as well as proceedings arising out of the same for keeping peace, harmony as well as to reduce friction in the society. Accordingly, the aforesaid FIR and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge January 07, 2010 mohan