CRM No. M 24994 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 24994 of 2008 Date of decision: 22.12.2009 Chanchal and others ........ Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and other .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. D K Bhatti, Advocate for for the petitioners Mr. Deepak Jindal Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent- State Mr. Vinjay Puri, Advocate for respondent No. 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. 405 dated 28.08.2008 registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120 B, 506 IPC at Police Station City Kaithal against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise having been arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. This Court vide order dated 10.11.2009, had directed CRM No. M 24994 of 2008 2 complainant No. 3 to appear before the trial Court with further direction to the trial Court to record the statements regarding compromise and submit its report as to whether the compromise is genuine one or not. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal has submitted his report stating therein that the statements of both the parties were recorded and the compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine. The dispute in the present case is with respect to the immovable property. The complainant had to purchase some land adjacent to Chandigarh for the commercial purposes of his business. For this, he approached petitioner Subhash Sahdev, who along with others assured the complainant a plot at Urban Estate Panchkula. The complainant gave his consent for the same. But subsequently, as alleged in the FIR, the petitioners were presented and showed some papers, which were actually alleged to have been forged. It was further alleged that the petitioners received Rs.30,00,000/- as advance for the purchase of the aforesaid plot from the complainant. However, later on they backed out from the same. Now, with the intervention of respectable persons, the matter has been settled. The complainant is not interested in pursuing any kind of civil and criminal limitation against each other. 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 CRM No. M 24994 of 2008 3 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.” CRM No. M 24994 of 2008 4 The present case is related to a dispute which is purely personal in nature, the compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed. Thus, keeping the Criminal proceedings alive will not be in the interest of justice. Keeping in mind the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh 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 and report received from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal that the compromise is genuine, the same deserves to be accepted. Thus, it would be in the interest of justice to quash FIR No. 405 dated 28.08.2008 registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120 B, 506 IPC at Police Station City Kaithal as well as proceedings arising out of the same. Accordingly, the aforesaid FIR and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge December 22, 2009 mohan