IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-21411 of 2010 Date of Decision:30.9.2010 Paramjit Singh @ Bhola and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Aminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. G.S. Benipal, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved for quashing of FIR No.26 dated 3.7.2010 under Sections 307/324/34 IPC Police Station City Ahmedgarh District Sangrur and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The FIR in question was got registered by respondent No.2 against the petitioners on the allegation of beatings. However, the matter is stated to have been compromised. Compromise deed has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. Affidavits (Annexures P-3 and P-4) of respondents No.2 and 3 authenticating the compromise have also been placed on record. Accordingly, notice of motion was issued and the parties were directed to be present in person in order to authenticate the compromise. In pursuance to the said direction, the parties are present in the Court through their respective counsel. Fresh affidavits of respondents No.2 and 3 are CRM M-21411 of 2010 -2- placed on record to substantiate the compromise. As per their affidavits, they have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. It is further stated that the said compromise was entered into without any pressure and out of their own sweet will as the petitioners are their close relatives. Normally this Court would have had reservation in accepting a compromise in an offence under Section 307 IPC. However, the fact in the present case are peculiar and therefore, the present petition cannot be thrown out at the threshold. Petitioner No.1 is the brother of respondent No.3 and respondent No.2-complainant is the wife of his deceased brother. Petitioner No.2 and 3 are wife and son of petitioner No.1. Thus, the petitioners and respondents No.2 and 3 are one family. The injuries are simple in nature. Even the allegation does not make out an offence under Section 307 of the IPC. Thus, there is no impediment in accepting the compromise. 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 held that 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 not only in matrimonial discord but others as well, such compromise deserves to be accepted. It is further held 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 CRM M-21411 of 2010 -3- 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 the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008 (4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised 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 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.” Taking into account that the parties are closely related to each other, the compromise has been effected between them vide compromise deed Annexure P-2, the affidavits of respondents No.2 and 3 authenticating the compromise stating that they have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed, it is a fit case in the facts as mentioned above where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR in the interest of justice as also on CRM M-21411 of 2010 -4- account of the facts that injuries are simple and the allegation as alleged do not make any offence under Section 307 IPC. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.26 dated 3.7.2010 under Sections 307/324/34 IPC Police Station City Ahmedgarh District Sangrur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the peculiar facts of the present case. 30.9.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE