IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 9111 of 2010 Date of decision: 29.07.2010 Kawaljit Singh and others ........ Petitioners Versus State of U T Chandigarh and others .......Respondent (s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Karan Vir Nanda, Advocate for for the petitioners Mr. Sukant Gupta, Advocate with Mr. G S Chahal, Advocate for the respondent - State Mr. Vivek, Advocate for Mr. O P Arora, Advocate for respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement 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. 38 dated 25.02.2010 under Section 420, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sector 19, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondents No. 2 to 4 - complainants against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 22.03.2010 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. Separate statements of the complainants to the same effect are also got recorded in the Court stating therein that they have compromised the matter out of their sweet will and without any pressure from any body. They have no objection if the aforesaid FIR is quashed. In business transactions some differences arose between the parties which ultimately led into filing of the present FIR. Now, the disputes have been amicably resolved between the parties vide compromised deed dated 22.03.2010. Respondents No. 2 to 4 have also filed their affidavits stating therein that with the intervention of the respectable of the society, family members and relatives of both the parties, the matter has been compromised. 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 present dispute is purely personal in nature and the compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainants have no objection if the said FIR is quashed. Taking into account the allegations, affidavit as well as the statements of the complainants and the matter being totally personal in nature, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the above settled proposition of law. Accordingly, the aforesaid FIR and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 29.07.2010 mohan