CRM NO.M-13420 OF 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *** CRM NO.M-13420 OF 2010 DATE OF DECISION 16.11.2011 Boota Singh ...Petitioner Versus Dalip Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Dalip Singh @ Kuldip Singh, respondent in person. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of Complaint No.13 dated 15.06.2002 (Annexure P-1) and summoning order dated 21.12.2004 (Annexure P-5) as also the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner only. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the present petition a compromise has been entered into between the petitioner and the respondent-Dalip Singh complainant. According to the said compromise, an appeal which was preferred by the petitioner and pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala titled as 'Boota Singh Vs. Dalip Singh' was to be withdrawn by him, which has, in fact, stands withdrawn by the petitioner on 03.08.2011. Further, the compromise was to the effect that the complainant shall have no objection to the deletion of the name of the petitioner from the array of accused in the complaint impugned herein. In the light of the compromise, the present petition deserves to be allowed qua the petitioner. CRM NO.M-13420 OF 2010 -2- Complainant Dalip Singh @ Kuldip Singh son of Maghar Singh is present in Court. He has in proof of his identity, produced his original voter identity card, which has been perused and also produced a photocopy of the same, which has been duly attested by the counsel for the petitioner and he has himself also put his signature thereon. Photocopy of identity card has been retained on record and original has been returned to him. An affidavit dated 04.08.2011 has been filed by him in Court, wherein he has admitted that a compromise has been entered into between the petitioner-Boota Singh and the complainant-Dalip Singh, the deponent. As per the terms of the agreement, petitioner has withdrawn his appeal, which was pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala on 03.08.2011. In the light of the withdrawl of the appeal by the petitioner, the complainant does not have any objection to the deletion of the name of the petitioner from the array of accused in the complaint pending before the trial Court, which is impugned. He further states that if the present petition is allowed by quashing the complaint and the summoning order qua the petitioner only, he has no objection to the same. No compromise has been entered into between him and the other accused in the complaint and this compromise is only with the petitioner. In the light of the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and the statement made by the complainant-Dalip Singh in Court today as also the affidavit which has been filed by him, it is apparent that a compromise has been entered into between the petitioner and the respondent and as per the said compromise, the dispute has been amicably resolved by the petitioner and the complainant-Dalip Singh, who has further stated that he has no objection if the present petition is allowed qua the petitioner only. CRM NO.M-13420 OF 2010 -3- A Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, while discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non-compoundable offence(s), has held as under:- “28. 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 in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation. 29. 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.” In the light of the judgment of this Court, which has been referred to above and the statement given by the complainant in Court today, present petition is allowed. Complaint No.13 of 15.06.2002 (Annexure P-1) and summoning order dated 21.12.2004 (Annexure P-5) along with all CRM NO.M-13420 OF 2010 -4- consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner only are hereby quashed. It is made clear that the quashing of the proceedings qua the petitioner-Buta Singh shall have no effect on the proceedings, which are pending against the other co-accused in Complaint No.13 of 15.06.2002 (Annexure P-1). 16.11.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) adhikari JUDGE