CRM No. M 20891 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 20891 of 2010 Date of decision: 20.09.2010 Diwan Singh etc. ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate Amicus Curiae Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State -.- 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 petition has arisen out of a communication bearing No.13513, dated 3rd September, 2009, sent by the District & Sessions Judge, Rupnagar to the Registry of this Court. Vide the aforesaid letter, the D&SJ has intimated that the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.100 dated 02.06.2001, under Sections 323 and 149 IPC, PS Kharar, titled as “State v. Diwan Singh”, Challan No. 397 dated 17.07.2001, were pending trial before JMIC, Kharar and the matter was placed before the State Level Lok Adalat at Ropar on CRM No. M 20891 of 2010 2 07.01.2006 in the presence Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.S. Bedi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Viney Mittal, whereupon, the complainant in the FIR case entered into a compromise with the accused and in terms thereof, the statements of the parties were recorded. Thereafter, vide the zimni order dated 08.01.2006 passed in the trial Court, the JMIC directed the office of the Lok Adalat to transmit the file to the High Court for suitable orders. Now, vide the aforesaid letter, the D&SJ has explained the delay in sending the trial Court file to this Court which was due to the mischief of the Criminal Ahlmad attached to the Court of JMIC who did not send the trial Court file to this Court, for which lapse the said Ahlmad has been dismissed from service. The case has been listed today before this Court for passing appropriate orders. I have perused the file of the learned trial Court. On 07.01.2006, the learned JMIC has recorded the statements of complainant Harvinder Singh son of Gurmail Singh, other injured, namely, Harnek Singh, Sadhu Singh, Manmohan Singh and accused persons, namely, Diwan Singh, Himmat Singh, Jaspal Singh, Harnek Singh, Iqbal Singh, Malkiat, Surinder Singh, Gurmail singh, Kirpal and Jaswant Singh, which are in consonance with each other, whereby they have stated in unison manner that with the intervention of respectables of the villagers, they have entered into a compromise, copy whereof has been placed on file as Ex.C1. 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:- CRM No. M 20891 of 2010 3 “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 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 technicalities of the law.” In view of the circumstances explained above, and the fact that the parties have stated on oath before the State Level Lok Adalat held at Ropar that they have resolved their inter-se dispute and have entered into a compromise, FIR No.100 dated 02.06.2001, under Sections 323 and 149 CRM No. M 20891 of 2010 4 IPC, PS Kharar and consequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. However, the parties shall be bound by their statements, referred to above. The certified copy of the order be sent free of cost to the parties concerned. Disposed of as above. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge September 20,2010 mohan