CRM M 35284 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- Date of decision: 11.02.2011 1. CRM M 35284 of 2009 Mandeep Singh alias Rinku and others ........ petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) 2. CRM M 35326 of 2009 Mohinder Kaur and others ...........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr.Shakun Chowdhery, Advocate for the petitioners (CRM M 35284 of 2009) Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate for the petitioners (CRM M 35326 of 2009) Ms Neelam, AAG, Punjab Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate for respondent No. 2 (CRM M 35326 of 2009) Mr.Shakun Chowdhery, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 4 (CRM M 35284 of 2009) -.- 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? CRM M 35284 of 2009 2 Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) Both these petitions arise out of the same FIR. Hence, the same are being disposed of by this common order. In CRM M 35284 of 2009, the petitioners are seeking quashing of the FIR No.123 dated 27.08.2005 under Sections 324, 326, 34 IPC, Police Station Sadar Nabha, District Patiala which was got registered on the statement of Mohinder Kaur-respondent No. 2 on the basis of compromise dated 09.12.09. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P2. Whereas, in CRM M 35326 of 2009, the petitioners are seeking quashing of a cross version registered on the statement of Ranjodh Singh in the aforesaid FIR under Sections 323, 324, 506, 148, 149 IPC. Complainant -Mohinder Kaur is present in Court today along with her counsel and has filed her affidavit, stating therein, that now with the intervention of the respectable and relatives of the family, the matter has been compromised vide compromise deed dated 09.12.2009 and she does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. Whereas, the cross version case in the said FIR was registered on the statement of Ranjodh Singh, who is stated to have expired. His legal representatives, namely, Mandeep Singh, Navjeet Singh and Sarabjeet Kaur i.e. two sons and widow respectively have filed their respective affidavits in Court today. The same are taken on record. Mandeep Singh and Navjeet Singh are also present in Court today. Sarabjeet Kaur widow of Ranjodh could not come present in Court today due to her illness. As per their said affidavits, they have compromised the matter with each each and do not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings against the accused petitioners. CRM M 35284 of 2009 3 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, 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 CRM M 35284 of 2009 4 without any pressure. Both the parties have no objection if the said FIR is quashed. Taking into account the allegations, compromise dated 09.12.2009 as well as affidavits of the complainant and legal representatives of Ranjodh Singh, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR as well as the cross version case in the said FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the above said settled proposition of law. Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed and FIR No.123 dated 27.08.2005 under Sections 324, 326, 34 IPC, Police Station Sadar Nabha, District Patiala as well as cross version case registered on the statement of Ranjodh Singh in the aforesaid FIR under Sections 323, 324, 506, 148, 149 IPC and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. Copy of the order be placed on the connected file. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 11.02.2011 mohan