IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-17120 of 2009 Date of decision: 05.08.2009 Mishri Lal son of Sh. Nanu Ram and others .....PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Yash Pal Malik, AAG, Haryana, for respondent No. 1. Mr. V.S.Rana, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.102 dated 28.06.2001 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 323, 324, 326, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Kalayat, District Kaithal and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of a compromise and in acknowledgment of the compromise, affidavit of Sh. Mahavir son of Jeeta, dated 01.07.2009 (Annexure P-2), who is the complainant and also affidavit of Deva son of Lal Singh dated 01.07.2009 (Annexure P-3), who is the injured, have been filed to the effect that a compromise has indeed been Crl. Misc. No. M-17120 of 2009 -2- entered into between the parties and they do not have any objection to the quashing of the FIR in question, which was registered on the behest of Mahavir son of Jeeta. Counsel for the petitioners, on the basis of the said affidavits, which have been placed on record, prays that the FIR in question may be quashed. Upon notice having been issued, a short reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3, wherein the factum of compromise has been acknowledged by the respondents. Sh. Mahavir son of Jeeta and Sh. Deva son of Lal Singh are present in the Court (as have been identified by their counsel), who, on being questioned by this Court, have acknowledged the factum of compromise having been entered into between the parties with the interference by the respectables and relatives of the parties. They have also stated that they do not have any objection in case the FIR, which was got registered on the statement of Sh. Mahavir, is quashed along with all consequential proceedings. In view of the fact that the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties and keeping in view the fact that both the parties, the complainant as well as the injured, are of the same Village and the compromise has been entered into by the respectables of the Village as well as the relatives of the parties, it would be in the interest of justice that the FIR No.102 dated 28.06.2001 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 323, 324, 326, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Kalayat, District Kaithal, be quashed. The endeavour and purpose for having laws is to have peace and harmony in the society and that can be achieved only by resolving the disputes and that too if amicably they are settled, it leads to permanent peace and harmony between the friends. In the present case, since they Crl. Misc. No. M-17120 of 2009 -3- are residing in the same Village and have decided to forget the dispute and forgive each other, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the FIR in question alive in the present petition. A Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, while discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non-compoundable offence(s), has held as under:- “28. 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 in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation. 29.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 limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the Crl. Misc. No. M-17120 of 2009 -4- 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.” Therefore, in view of the discussion above, since the parties have amicably settled the matter, no useful purpose would be served if the proceedings are continued before the trial Court. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No.102 dated 28.06.2001 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 323, 324, 326, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Kalayat, District Kaithal and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE August 05, 2009 pj