CRM No. M 15842 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 15842 of 2010 Date of decision: 19.07.2010 Jagdev Singh and others ........ petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. K S Boparai, Advocate for for the petitioners Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State Mr. Charan Pal Singh Bagri, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 -.- 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 No.161 dated 04.09.2008 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sultanpur, District Kapurthala (Annexure P-1) which was registered on the the complaint moved by respondent No. 2 against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 10.04.2010 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been CRM No. M 15842 of 2010 2 placed on record as Annexure P-2. Separate statements of Respondents No. 2 to 4, namely, Dyal Chand alias Dyal Dass, Tinku and Dwarka Dass to the same effect are also got recorded by them in the Court. In their statements, Respondents No. 2 to 4 in unison manner submitted that the matter has been compromised and they have no objection if the aforesaid FIR is quashed. Affidavit of Dyal Chand alias Dyal Dass is also placed on record stating therein that civil suit bearing No. 57 dated 17.03.2009 pending between the parties has already been compromised and he has no objection if the aforesaid FIR is quashed. A copy of the order dated 10.04.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer-cum-ACJ (SD) Sultanpur Lodhi also shows that on the basis of the compromise and statements of the parties recorded in Court, civil suit No. 57 dated 17.03.2009, titled as Dyal Chand and others v. Jagdev Singh and others stands disposed off. As per the allegations in the FIR, the petitioners had fabricated the sale deed dated 08.01.2008 regarding the property of the complainants. 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 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 CRM No. M 15842 of 2010 3 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.” The present dispute 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 complainants have no objection if the said FIR is quashed. Taking into account the allegations, affidavit as well as the statements of Respondents No. 2 to 4 and the matter being totally personal in nature, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the above settled proposition of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.161 dated 04.09.2008 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sultanpur, District Kapurthala (Annexure P-1) and CRM No. M 15842 of 2010 4 further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed qua the present petitioners. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 19.07.2010 mohan