IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-5730 of 2010 Date of Decision:22.11.2010 Jatinder Kumar and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Liaqat Ali, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Munish Kumar, A.A.G. Punjab. Mr. Ashwani Gaur, 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 has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.172 dated 10.8.2001 under Sections 420/467/468/471/506 IPC Police Station Haibowal, District Ludhiana and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The FIR in question was got registered by Sh. Baldev Singh (father of respondents No.2 and 3), who has since expired. However, due to the intervention of the respectable of the area, the matter has been compromised. Compromise deed (Annexure P-2) has also been placed on record. Accordingly, notice of motion was issued and in pursuance to the said notice respondents No.2 and 3 have appeared before this Court on 28.5.2010. Their separate statements have been recorded. They stated in their statements that they are four brothers and one sister out of which one CRM M-5730 of 2010 -2- brother has expired and the fourth one is residing abroad. Respondent No.3-Surender Kumar stated in his statement that he is the Power of Attorney holder on behalf of his brother Rakesh Kumar, who is residing abroad. They further stated in their statements that the matter has been compromised and they have no objection, if the FIR in question is quashed. Since, there are also other legal heirs of the deceased Baldev Singh, the parties were directed to file their respective affidavits in support of the compromise. In pursuance to the said directions, affidavits of daughter and wife namely Saneh Lata and Kamlesh Kumari of deceased-complainant as well as affidavits of daughters (Deepali and Rupali) of Ashwani Kumar (deceased) son of late Baldev Singh-complainant have been filed stating that the matter has been compromised and they have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. 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-5730 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 compromise has been effected between the parties, compromise deed (Annexure P-2), affidavits of all the legal heirs of the deceased-complainant and statements made by respondents No.2 and 3 stating that they have no objection if the FIR is quashed, it is a fit case 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. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.172 dated 10.8.2001 under Sections 420/467/468/471/506 IPC Police Station Haibowal, District Ludhiana and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 22.11.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE