Crl. Misc. No. M-17080 of 2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-17080 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: June 2,2011 Satbir Singh ..................... ......................... Petitioner Versus Jagtar Singh ............................................ Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Ruminderjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ... RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. J.B.S.Gill, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of complaint No.35 dated 31.7.2006 titled Jagtar Singh v. Bahadur Singh etc. under Section 326-324-452/34 IPC pending only qua the petitioner, attached as Annexure P1 and all subsequent proceedings thereto against the petitioner on the basis of compromise as reflected in the compromise deed dated 19.5.2011 attached as Annexure P2 Crl. Misc. No. M-17080 of 2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] and affidavit of the respondent attached as Annexure P3. Counsel for the petitioner states that he has compromised the matter with the respondent and has referred to the decision dated 5.3.2009 in Crl. Misc. No. 32013-M of 2008 where criminal proceedings against the three accused namely Bahadur Singh, Gurjit Singh alias Jitu and Harvinder Singh have since been quashed on the basis of compromise. It has been so stated in the compromise deed and the complainant does not want to pursue the proceedings against the petitioner as well. Affidavit of the complainant has been filed as Annexure P-3. Counsel for respondent No.2 states that the compromise has been duly effected. Broad guidelines have been laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 for quashing the prosecution when parties entered into compromise. The Full Bench has observed that this power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- “26. In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, (1980)1 SCC 63, Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the essence of compromise in the following words :- “The finest hour of justice arrived propitiously when parties, despite Crl. Misc. No. M-17080 of 2011 (O&M) [ 3 ] falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.” 27. The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted by distorted perceptions and is not a slave to anything, except to the caution and circumspection, the standards of which the Court sets before it, in exercise of such plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it while donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of justice. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) if the Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 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 emity 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-17080 of 2011 (O&M) [ 4 ] 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.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429 has examined a case where quashing was sought of an FIR under Section 406 IPC being non- compoundable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :- “1. No useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise – There was no possibility of conviction. 2. It is advisable that in the disputes where question involved is of purely personal nature and no public policy is involved – Court should ordinarily accept the compromise. 3. Keeping the matter alive with no possibility of conviction is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford.” Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Crl. Misc. No. M-17080 of 2011 (O&M) [ 5 ] Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (supra) and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), complaint No. 35 dated 31.7.2006 titled as Jagtar Singh v. Bahadur Singh etc. under Sections 326-324-452/34 IPC (Annexure P1) is quashed with all subsequent proceedings. Petition is disposed of. 2.6.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE