Crl. Misc. No.M-10813 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-10813 of 2010 Date of Decision: 09.04.2010 Ragvinder Singh Bhatia ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Ms. Seema Pasricha, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** 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) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the F.I.R. No.166 dated 23.02.2010 under Sections 420, 406 and 506 of IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. Notice of motion. At this stage, Mr. Vikas Sagar, Advocate appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2 and Mr. Sanjeev Sura, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Mr. Anil Bagga (respondent No.2/complainant) is also present in the Court. The FIR was registered against the present petitioners by respondent No.2-Anil Bagga son of Sh. Pran Nath Bagga. Due to the Crl. Misc. No.M-10813 of 2010 2 intervention of the respectables of both the parties, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The same is placed on record as P-2. As per the compromise, the complainant respondent No.2-Anil Bagga does not wish to pursue the above mentioned FIR against the petitioner. An affidavit of respondent No.2 has also been executed affirming the factum of compromise. A separate statement of respondent No.2-Anil Bagga has also been recorded. It is duly stated by him that the matter has been compromised. The said compromise has been arrived at amicably and without any pressure. It is further stated that he has no objection, if the said FIR is quashed. The allegations in the FIR are totally personal in nature. The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. 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 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 vs. State of Punjab 2008(4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under :- Crl. Misc. No.M-10813 of 2010 3 “ 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.” In the present case, the dispute is totally personal in nature. The matter having been compromised, it is 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 the FIR. In view of the settled position of law, it would be just and proper to quash the FIR for peace, harmony and thus allow the parties to move on in life. Taking into account the compromise, the affidavit and the statement made by respondent No.2-Anil Bagga, it is apparent that the compromise is genuine. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and F.I.R. No.166 dated 23.02.2010 under Sections 420, 406 and 506 of IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 09.04.2010 JUDGE gurpreet