Crl. Misc. No. M-6018 of 2010 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-6018 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 07.04.2010 Pal Ram Sauda & Ors. ..........Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ..........Respondent BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Navneet Singh, AAG, Haryana. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of criminal complaint No. 184 of 2008 dated 14.6.2008 registered under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act as well as summoning order dated 15.6.2009 passed by JMIC, kaithal, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3). Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and now nothing remains in this complaint. He further submits that complainant-Pala Ram Sauda has no objection in quashing of the aforesaid complaint as well as summoning accused. Complainant-Pala Ram Sauda and accused-Madan Gopal Jindal and Jaswant Godara are present in Court and they have been identified by their counsel Mr. A.P. Bhandari. They have stated in the Crl. Misc. No. M-6018 of 2010 (2) Court that the matter has been compromised between them and complainant has no objection in quashing of complaint as well as summoning order. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has also not controverted the factum of compromise between the parties. On the asking of the Court, complainant-Pala Ram Saudha has specifically stated that he has no objection if the aforesaid complaint as well as summoning order is quashed. In view of the statement made by complainant-Pala Ram Saudha, no purpose will be served if the case is tried because as per the compromise he will not support the case of the prosecution and it will be sheer wastage of precious time of this Court. It has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney Vs. Mr. Kaushalya Sawhney and others 1980 (1) SCC 63 that “the finest Hour of Justice arrives propitiously when the parties, despite following apart bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.” Relying on the views adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Five Judges Bench of this Court also observed in Kulwinder Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 that compounding of offence which are not compoundable under Section 320(9) Cr.P.C. but parties entering into compromise, this Court has the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allowing compounding of non-compoundable offences and quash the prosecution where the Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The present one is a case covered by the views observed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the judgment mentioned above and, is therefore, a fit case to quash the FIR. In view of the above, criminal complaint No. 184 of 2008 dated Crl. Misc. No. M-6018 of 2010 (3) 14.6.2008 registered under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act as well as summoning order dated 15.6.2009 passed by JMIC, kaithal are quashed. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. April 07, 2010 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No