IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-55105 of 2007 Date of Decision:10.5.2011 Videocon International Ltd and another .... Petitioners Versus Shri Manoj Kumar .... Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Malwani, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sunil Tondon, Advocate for respondent. **** 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 Criminal complaint (Ananexure P-4) i.e. case No.RBT 355-1/8.10.02/23.7.03 under Section 420/406/500/323/120- B IPC filed by the respondent before the learned JMIC Fazilka on 8.10.2002/23.7.2003. During the pendency of the present petition, the matter has been compromised between the parties before Mediation and Conciliation Centre on 8.4.2011 in Mediation Case No.22 of 2011. Today, the parties are present in the Court. In pursuance to the compromise entered into between the parties before Mediation and Conciliation Centre on 8.4.2011, learned counsel for the petitioner has handed over a draft bearing No.019983 amounting to Rs.40,000/- in the Court as full and final settlement to the learned counsel for the respondent. CRM M-55105 of 2007 -2- Respondent-Manoj Kumar, who is present in the Court alongwith his counsel, got his statement recorded to the effect that the matter has been compromised. He has entered into the said compromised out of his own free will. In pursuance to the said compromise, he has been handed over a draft bearing No.019983 amounting to Rs.40,000/- in the Court today as full and final settlement. He is satisfied with the same. He has no objection if the complaint in question (Annexure P-4) is quashed. 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 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 thewide 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 v. State of Punjab CRM M-55105 of 2007 -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 that the compromise has been effected between the parties and the statement made by the respondent stating that he has no objection if the complaint in question is quashed, 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 complaint in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and Criminal complaint (Ananexure P-4) i.e. case No.RBT 355-1/8.10.02/23.7.03 under Section 420/406/500/323/120-B IPC filed by the respondent before the learned JMIC Fazilka on 8.10.2002/23.7.2003 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 10.5.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE