IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-8399 of 2010 Date of Decision:17.5.2010 Sucha Singh and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .... Respondents And CRM M-8224 of 2010 Date of Decision:17.5.2010 Mehal Singh and others .... Petitioners Versus Gurmeet Singh and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. K.D.S. Sidhu, Advocate. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. K.R. Dhawan, Advocate. **** 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 petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been moved for grant of permission to compound the offence under Sections 326/324/341/323/148/149 IPC in FIR No.119 dated 12.10.1997 at Police Station Makhu, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur as well as in cross case i.e. Complaint No.40-I dated 26.11.1997/21.9.2002 filed before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Zira, District Ferozepur and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The FIR in question was registered on the statement of Kirpal Kaur whereas cross case was filed by Gurmeet Singh for which both the parties were convicted by the trial court vide judgment dated 15.4.2009 CRM M-8399 of 2010 -2- passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Zira. Now, the appeal is pending before the learned Appellate Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties herein have amicably settled the matter with the intervention of elders, family members and the respectable of the village. Compromise deed Annexure P-3 has also been placed on record in both the petitions. Separate statements of Kirpal Kaur-complainant in FIR case and Gurmeet Singh-complainant in cross case have also been recorded in the Court. As per their statements, they have no objection if the conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class is set aside and the parties are acquitted of the charges. The separate statements of other injured witnesses namely Paramjeet Kaur, Rashpal Kaur and Sucha Singh have also been recorded in the Court to the same effect. They too have no objection if the parties are acquitted of the charges. The Apex Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2008(2) RCR (Criminl) 910 while quashing the FIR and all proceedings arising out of the same held that the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. In that case also the petitioners were convicted under Section 498-A IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment of 18 months. An appeal was filed against the conviction order and during the pendency of the appeal, the parties had settled their differences. However, they filed petition before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint as well as conviction order on account of the compromise. The High Court dismissed the same. Aggrieved, they challenged the same before the Apex Court. The Apex Court accepted the compromise and quashed the FIR and all the proceedings arising out of the same, as well as order of conviction. CRM M-8399 of 2010 -3- This Court in the case of Sukhwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjan and another, 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 991 who relying upon the judgment of Khursheed and another v. State of U.P. And another, 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 495 allowed the petitioners to compound the offence under Section 452 IPC during the pendency of the appeal. In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, 2008 (4) S.C. Case 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under:- “ We need to emphasise that it is a 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 the allegation in the FIR, the statements of complainants and other injured witnesses recorded separately, there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and accept the compromise to allow the parties to live amicably which shall reduce the friction in the society and promote peace and harmony. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as compromise effected between the parties, parties are allowed to compound the offence. Accordingly, the parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Court where the appeal is pending. Thereafter, the Appellate CRM M-8399 of 2010 -4- Court shall pass appropriate orders in the light of permission granted by this Court to the parties to compound the offence. Accordingly the present petition is allowed. A photo copy of this order be placed in the connected case. 17.5.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE