CRM No. M-36597 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-36597 of 2010 Date of Decision : December 21, 2011 Jagdev Singh and others .... PETITIONERS Vs. State of Punjab and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH * * * Present : Mr. B.S.Bhalla, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. J.S.Brar, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. * * * AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No. 4 dated 10.01.2010 under Sections 457, 380, 427, 447 and 511 IPC, registered at Police Station City Moga and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of a compromise dated 08.12.2010 (Annexure P-2) entered into between the petitioners and the complainant-respondent No. 2 Vijay Kumar. CRM No. M-36597 of 2010 2 It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that primarily the dispute was between the tenant and the landlords. Respondent No. 2-complainant is a tenant, who has alleged that the wall had been demolished of the shop and some goods (old parts of tractors and the bricks of the demolished walls) have been removed by the petitioners. He contends that during the pendency of the investigation, a compromise has been entered into between the parties, according to which, complainant has no objection to the quashing of the present FIR as he does not want to further pursue the matter. Counsel for the petitioners has placed on record a certified copy of the statement made by the complainant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga on 20.12.2010 stating therein that a compromise has been effected between the parties without any pressure or duress with his own sweet will and he has no objection if the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused-petitioners may be dropped. The same is taken on record. Counsel for respondent No. 2 does not dispute the factum of compromise dated 08.12.2010 (Annexure P-2, which has been entered into between the parties with the intervention of respectables and common friends of the parties. Sh. Vijay Kumar son of Amir Chand, resident of Street No. 2, Radha Swami Nagar, Moga-respondent No. 2-complainant, is present in Court and has been identified by his counsel and makes a statement that the compromise has indeed been entered into between the parties dated 08.12.2010 (Annexure P-2). He further CRM No. M-36597 of 2010 3 states that he has given a statement before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga on 20.12.2010, where he had admitted the factum of compromise and that he had no objection to the dropping of the proceedings against the petitioners, who are accused in the FIR. He states that he has no objection to the present petition being allowed by quashing the FIR registered by him against the petitioners as he does not want to further pursue the same in the light of the compromise. A Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, while discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non-compoundable offence(s), has held as under:- “28. 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 reduces 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 by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to CRM No. M-36597 of 2010 4 prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation. 29. 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.” In view of the statement made by respondent No. 2 Vijay Kumar, who is present in Court, the continuance of the present proceedings against the petitioners would not be conducive to the amicable resolution of the dispute and the society as well and, therefore, keeping in view the ratio of the judgment referred to above in the case of Kulwinder Singh & Ors. (supra), the present petition deserves to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. FIR No. 4 dated 10.01.2010 under Sections 457, 380, 427, 447 and 511 IPC, registered at Police Station City Moga and all CRM No. M-36597 of 2010 5 consequential proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioners are hereby quashed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) December 21, 2011 JUDGE pj