Crl. Misc.No.M 13193 of 2010 # 1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAT AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc.No.M 13193 of 2010 Date of Decision:-01.11.2010 Jagir Chand. ......Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab & Anr. ......Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. Gopal Singh Nahel, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab. Mr. Varinder Singh Mand, Advocate for the respondent no.2. *** JASWANT SINGH, J. Prayer is under section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of FIR No.69 dated 26.09.2009 under Sections 420 of Indian Penal Code registered with Police Station Longowal, District Sangrur on the basis of compromise (P2) dated 01.05.2010. As per allegations in the FIR lodged by respondent no.2 Varinder Kumar one Jagdish Singh had entered into an agreement to sell dated 9.4.2008 for sale of his land for a sum of Rs.13,77,000/-. He received earnest money of Rs.10,50,000/-. The remaining three lacs were to be paid on the execution of the sale deed on 30.10.2008. It is alleged that the said Crl. Misc.No.M 13193 of 2010 # 2# Jagdish Singh in connivance with his other co-accused took the remaining amount of Rs.3,00,000/-(rupees three lac) from the house of the complainant on 10.06.2008 and thereafter refused to either execute the sale deed or return the amount. The allegation against the petitioner Jagir Chand are that he was one of the marginal witness to the aforesaid agreement to sell dated 9.4.2008. Upon notice complainant is present in the court and has been identified by his counsel. He states that he has entered into compromise with the present petitioner as he had no role in the cheating affected by Jagdish Singh and his co-accused. He further states that he has no objection if the present FIR qua the present petitioner Jagir Chand is quashed. His statement has been separately recorded. Learned State Counsel on instructions from HC Major Singh states that challan in the present case has been presented and the case is fixed at the stage of framing of charge. Learned State Counsel further points out that there are seven accused and out of the seven accused, complainant has only affected compromise with the petitioner Jagir Chand and therefore piecemeal prayer for quashing cannot be entertained. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment of this court in Parambir Sigh Gill Vs. Malkiat Kaur 2010(1) RCR(Criminal) 256 wherein on account of compromise with some of the accused prayer was accepted and the FIR was quashed qua some of the accused while permitting the prosecution to proceed with the trial qua the remaining accused with whom no compromise has been effected. Crl. Misc.No.M 13193 of 2010 # 3# A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash an FIR disclosing the commission of non- compoundable offences. The relevant extracts read 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.” Similar views were expressed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abot v. State of Punjab 2008(4) SCC 582, the relevant extract of which is 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.” Crl. Misc.No.M 13193 of 2010 # 4# Keeping in view the above settled legal position and taking into account the fact that both the parties have desired to live in peace and harmony and carry on with their lives without any ill will or rancour by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, it is evident that it is a fit case where there is no legal impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of the FIR in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.69 dated 26.09.2009 under Sections 420 of Indian Penal Code registered with Police Station Longowal, District Sangrur as well as the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua petitioner Jagir Chand only. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE 01st November, 2010 Vinay