Crl. Misc. No. M-23974 of 2010 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-23974 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 14.02.2011 Ramesh Kumar @ Ramesh Bharti & Ors. ..........Petitioners Versus Chanan Singh ..........Respondent BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. H.S. Gill, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.B.S. Mann, Advocate for the respondent. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of Ramesh Kumar @ Ramesh Bharti, Baldev Raj, Gobind Ram @ Gobind Pal and Vinod Kumar for compounding the offence in complaint No. 77 of 22.7.2204 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC, decided by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot vide judgment dated 11.1.2010. Notice of motion to the respondent was issued on 19.8.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that initially complaint under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC was filed against ten accused and vide judgment dated 11.1.2010 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, six accused, namely, Swaran Lata, Sumitra Devi, Ardaman Kumar, Kanta Rani, Suman Rani and Lalita Bharti were acquitted Crl. Misc. No. M-23974 of 2010 (O&M) (2) of the charges framed against them and petitioners, namely, Ramesh Kumar @ Ramesh Bharti, Baldev Raj, Gobind Ram @ Gobind Pal and Vinod Kumar were convicted under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC. Learned counsel further contends that against the judgment, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, which is still pending and during the pendency of the appeal, both the parties have compromised the matter and complainant has submitted an affidavit (Annexure P-4) to this effect, wherein, it has specifically been mentioned that he has no objection if the proceedings against the petitioners are quashed and they be acquitted of the charges framed against them. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Dr. Arvind Barsaul Etc. Vs. State of Madya Pradesh and another 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 910 and of this Court in Raman Kumar Verma and another Vs. Smt. Lyuba Verma and another 2009 (1) RCR (Criminal) 424 in support of his contention. Complainant-Chanan Singh is also present in the Court, who has been identified by his counsel. On the asking of the Court, he has specifically stated that that he has no objection in compounding of the offence as well as in acquittal of the petitioners. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as statement made by complainant and the fact that the parties have compromised the matter, I am of the considered view that continuation of impugned criminal proceedings between the parties would be an exercise in futility. Moreover, the scope of quashing of proceedings on the basis of compromise in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are wide and even in non-compoundable offences, the larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2007(3) R.C.R. (Cri) 1052 has held that the Court has wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the Crl. Misc. No. M-23974 of 2010 (O&M) (3) bar under Section 320 Cr.P.C. in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice. In the similar situated case, where the accused were convicted and during the pendency of the appeal, the parties had compromised the matter, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Khursheed and another Vs. State of U.P. and another 2007 (4) RCR (Criminal) 495 granted permission to compound the offence under Section 325 IPC. In view of the settled proposition of law and the fact that the parties have compromised the matter, there is no legal impediment to grant permission to the parties to compound the offence. Accordingly, the parties are allowed to compound the offence under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC. Thus, the present petition is allowed and the petitioners are directed to appear before the Appellate Court on 25.2.2011 where the appeal is pending and the appellate Court shall pass an appropriate order in the light of permission having been granted by this Court to the parties to compound the offence. February 14, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No