Crl.M.No.11757-M of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Order: 17.9.2010 Crl.M.No.11757-M of 2010 Varun Garg and others .....Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents And Crl.M.No.11764-M of 2010 Sarabjit Garg and others .....Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. (in Crl.M.No.11757-M of 2010). Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. Rajan Bansal, Advocate (for the petitioners in Crl.M.No.11764-M of 2010) ( for respondent No.2 in Crl.M.No.11757-M of 2010) JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) By this common order, Crl.M.No.11757-M of 2010 and Crl.M.No.11764-M of 2010 shall be decided together wherein the prayer under Section 482 Cr.P.C is for quashing of FIR No.8 dated 16.1.2010 under Sections 307/34 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, P.S Bagha Purana, District Moga and cross version in the similar FIR for offence under Sections 323/324/326/34 IPC and all consequential proceedings arising Crl.M.No.11757-M of 2010 #2# therefrom on the basis of compromise deed dated 15.2.2010 (P.3). A dispute between descendants of a common ancestor is stated to have arisen over partition and possession of some land whereby both the parties inflicted injuries to each other. This Court, on 29.7.2010, directed the parties to appear before the ld. Illaqa Magistrate to get their statement recorded, as challan had not been presented so far. A letter No.3624 dated 18.8.2010 sent by ld. JMIC, Moga through ld. District & Sessions Judge, Faridkot has been received wherein it is stated that statements of both the parties have been got recorded whereby they have compromised the matter due to intervention of respectables of the society without any pressure and threat and that they do not want to proceed further with the case. Learned state counsel has expressed no objection to quashing of FIR as the parties have compromised the matter. In view of the fact that cousins have amicably resolved their dispute and both the parties are not willing to support the prosecution against each other, it is evident that no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the proceedings. A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, may quash an FIR disclosing the commission of non-compoundable offences. The relevant extracts read 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 Crl.M.No.11757-M of 2010 #3# 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.” Similar views were expressed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abot v. State of Punjab 2008(4) SCC 582, the relevant extract of which is 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.” Keeping in view the above settled legal position and taking Crl.M.No.11757-M of 2010 #4# into account the fact that both the parties have desired to live in peace and harmony and carry on with their lives by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, it is evident that 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 the FIR in the interest of justice. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed and FIR No.8 dated 16.1.2010 under Sections 307/34 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, P.S Bagha Purana, District Moga and cross version in the similar FIR for offence under Sections 323/324/326/34 IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. A photo copy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case. September 17, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE