CRM No. M 33860 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 33860 of 2010 Date of decision: 31.01.2011 Kuljeet Singh and others ........Petitioners Versus State of U T, Chandigarh and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate for Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the UT Respondent Mr. C S Rana, Advocate for respondent No. 2 - 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) CRM 3420 of 2011 This is an application for pre-poning the date of hearing already fixed in the main case. Notice in the application was issued to Senior Standing counsel for UT Chandigarh. Today, Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate appeared on behalf of UT, Chandigarh and has no objection if the said application is allowed. CRM No. M 33860 of 2010 2 In view of the above, the present application is allowed and the date already fixed in the main case is preponed and the main case is being taken for hearing today itself. Main case This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 169 dated 30.08.2010 under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 506 IPC, P S Sector 26, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise/affidavit dated 10.11.2010 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. The complainant is present in Court along with his counsel. He has also filed his affidavit in Court today, stating therein, that aforesaid FIR was got registered by him. It is also stated by him that with the intervention of the respectables, friends and Principal of the College, the matter has been amicably resolved and he has no objection if the said FIR is quashed. In the present case, due to some misunderstanding, the said FIR was got registered by respondent No.2 against the present petitioners. Now, the parties have amicably resolved the matter and the complainant has no objection if the said FIR 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 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, CRM No. M 33860 of 2010 3 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.” The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed. Taking into account the allegations, compromise dated 10.11.2010 as well as affidavit of the complainant, 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 said settled CRM No. M 33860 of 2010 4 proposition of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 169 dated 30.08.2010 under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 506 IPC, P S Sector 26, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising out the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 31.01.2011 mohan