IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-3345 of 2009 Date of decision : 29.4.2010 Mamta Saini … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR Present: Mr.Dharam Pal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.S.Pannu, DAG, Punjab. Mr.Harish Goyal, Advocate for respondents Nos.2 and 3. 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. 91 dated 7.11.2008 under Sections 406, 420 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Nurpur Bedi, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib and District Roopnagar (Punjab) registered against the petitioner on the basis of compromise dated 27.12.2008 executed between the parties before this Court . As per order dated 17.4.2009, Mr.Harish Goyal, Advocate had put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3. Respondents No.2 and 3 were present in the Court and were identified by their counsel Mr.Harish Goyal. It is stated by respondents No.2 and 3 that out of total amount of Rs.7,00,000/-, they have received Rs.4,80,000/- from the petitioner-Mamta Saini. Receipt of above payment is admitted in their affidavit dated 27.12.2008. The same are taken on record. Crl.Misc.No.M-3345 of 2009 The present dispute is purely personal in nature and the compromise has been arrived at between the present petitioner and complainant. Since the matter has been compromised between the present petitioner-Mamta Saini and the complainant, learned counsel for the respondent stated that respondents have no objection if the FIR is quashed only qua present petitioner-Mamta Saini. Since the balance amount is to be paid by the co-accused, no compromise is affected with him. Hence, FIR qua him should not be quashed. This Court in the case of Parambir Singh Gill v. Malkiat Kaur reported as 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 256 quashed the proceedings against one of the accused on the basis of compromise, whereas proceedings against the other co-accused were allowed to continue. Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is otherwise compoundable with the permission of the Court. 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:- 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-3345 of 2009 “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 petitioner and complainant. The said compromise has been arrived at between the two without any pressure. The complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed qua the present petitioner. Taking into account the allegations as well as the statement of the complainant and the matter being totally personal in nature, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR at least qua the petitioner. Keeping in mind the decisions rendered by this Court in the cases of Parambir Singh Gill, Kulwinder Singh (supra) as well as the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot (supra) as also the facts of the present case, the compromise deserves to be accepted. Thus, it would be in the interest of justice to quash FIR No. 91 dated 7.11.2008 under Sections 406, 420 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Nurpur Bedi, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib and District Roopnagar as well as further proceedings arising out of the same for keeping peace, harmony as well as to reduce friction in the society qua the petitioner only. 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-3345 of 2009 Accordingly, the aforesaid FIR and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed qua the petitioner-Mamta Saini whereas the proceedings against other accused shall continue. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. [ Nirmaljit Kaur ] Judge 29.4.2010 sd 4