CRM No. M 8153 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 8153 of 2011 Date of decision: 05.04.2011 Mukesh Kumar alias Rajesh and others ........ Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Amit Rana, DAG, Haryana for the respondent - State Mr. Sunil Saharan, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3 -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment 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. 844 dated 28.10.2005 under Sections 307, 323, 324, 34 IPC, P S Sadar Hisar (Annexure P1) and cross version under section 323, 324, 34 IPC registered against respondents No. 2 and 3 in the said FIR as well as all subsequent proceedings arising thereof on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. Copy of the compromise has been placed on record as Annexure P3. CRM No. M 8153 of 2011 2 The parties are present in Court today. They are closely related with each other. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 and respondent No. 1 are first cousin i.e. father of petitioner and father of respondents No. 1 are real brothers. This is a version and cross version case. The aforesaid FIR was got registered against the petitioners on the statement made by the wife of Rattan Singh (respondent No. 2). In the said incident, the petitioners too have suffered injuries at the hands of the complainant party. Thereafter, on the statement made by Ram Kumar (since dead), a cross version was also registered in the said FIR against respondent No. 2. Petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 respectively are the sons and wife of the said Ram Kumar, whereas father of respondent No. 1 and petitioner No.1 and are real brothers. Now, with the intervention of the Panchayat, the matter has been compromised between the parties vide compromise deed dated 20.02.2011. Both the parties have agreed to put an end to the litigation so that they can live happily without any ill-will in their brotherhood. Affidavit of the complainant has been filed in Court today. The same is taken on record. In her affidavit, she has admitted that a compromise (P3) has been executed between the parties and she has no objection if the said FIR is quashed. No doubt, the present case is registered under Section 307 IPC and the Court would not have normally accepted the compromise. However, keeping in view that the parties are closely related and blood relation as discussed above and have also mutually decided to put an end to the litigation, this Court is moved to exercise its inherent power under CRM No. M 8153 of 2011 3 Section 482 Cr.P.C to accept the compromise. In Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others reported as 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, the Larger Bench of our own High Court has held that the High 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 abuse of the process any Court or to secure the ends of justice. In Kulwinder Singh's case, the Larger Bench has also been observed:- “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 CRM No. M 8153 of 2011 4 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.” Thus, taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case as well as compromise and affidavit of the complainant, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C and accept the compromise for quashing of 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. 844 dated 28.10.2005 under Sections 307, 323, 324, 34 IPC, P S Sadar Hisar (Annexure P1) and cross version under section 323, 324, 34 IPC registered against respondents No. 2 and 3 in the said FIR (Annexure P2) as well as all subsequent proceedings arising thereof are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 05.04.2011 mohan