Crl. Misc.No.M 26474 of 2010 # 1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAT AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc.No.M 26474 of 2010 Date of Decision:-25.11.2010 Harpreet Singh @ Happy. ......Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab & Ors. ......Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. J.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab. Mr. S.K. Bawa, Advocate for the respondent no.2-complainant. *** JASWANT SINGH, J. Prayer is under section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of FIR No.15 dated 9.2.2009 under Sections 379 and 411 of Indian Penal Code registered with Police Station Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur along with all the subsequent proceedings on the basis of compromise dated 11.06.2010 (Annexure P-2). As per allegations in the FIR, on dated 6.2.2009 complainant- Sant Singh(respondent no.2) son of Lehmber Singh went to Garhshankar on his motor cycle bearing registration no.PB-24-9933 for some personal work and parked the same outside the court complex and went inside the court Crl. Misc.No.M 26474 of 2010 # 2# complex. When he came back after half an hour he found his motor cycle missing from the place where he had parked the same and he lodged the present FIR regarding the theft of aforesaid motor cycle. Thereafter the motor cycle was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Upon notice of motion complainant-respondent no.2 Sant Singh has caused appearance in the court today and he has been identified by his counsel. He states that he has compromised the matter with the petitioner and has no objection if the present FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that petitioner who is a student is not involved in any other case except the present FIR. Statement of the respondent no.2-complainant has been recorded separately to this effect. Learned State Counsel on instructions from HC Gurinderjit Singh submits that the case is at the stage of recording of prosecution evidence. He further concedes that petitioner is a student and is involved in the present FIR only. He is further unable to raise any serious objection in view of the statements recorded in terms of the aforesaid compromise whereby the complainant is not willing to support his case. Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2003)4 SCC 675 B.S. Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Another has made it explicitly clear in para 15 of its judgment that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or effect the powers under Section 482 of the Code. Crl. Misc.No.M 26474 of 2010 # 3# A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has also 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 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.” Hon'ble Apex Court in another case in J.T. 2008(9) S.C. 192 Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another while relying upon its decision in B.S. Joshi's case(supra) has also held that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of criminal proceedings and the continuance of the same after compromise between the parties would be a futile exercise. 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 Crl. Misc.No.M 26474 of 2010 # 4# 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 into account the fact that both the parties have desired to live in peace and harmony and carry on with their lives without any ill will or rancour by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, it is evident that it is a fit case where there is no legal 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, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.15 dated 9.2.2009 under Sections 379 and 411 of Indian Penal Code registered with Police Station Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur along with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed against the petitioners. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE 25th November, 2010 Vinay