CRM M 19888 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- Date of decision: 25.11.2010 1. CRM M 19888 of 2010 Jagsanjh Nath alias Jagmal Singh and others ........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondent(s) 2. CRM M 19811 of 2010 Chamkaur Singh etc. ........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners (in CRM M 19888 of 2010) Mr. Balbir Singh Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioners (In CRM M 19811 of 2010) Mr. P S Bajwa, DAG, Punjab for the respondent Mr. Balbir Singh Jaswal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 ( in CRM M 19888 of 2010) Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3 (in CRM M 19811 of 2010) -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? CRM M 19888 of 2010 2 Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) The aforesaid petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR 104 dated 22.04.2010 under Sections 326, 323, 324, 427, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code, P S Nakodar, District Jalandhar as well as counter version given in the aforesaid FIR on the basis of the compromise dated 10.07.2010 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. On the statement of Chamkaur Singh-respondent No. 2, the present FIR was registered against the petitioners in CRM M 19888 of 2010. In a fight took place between the parties, Chamkaur Singh alias Lala and Kulwinder Singh-respondent No. 3 received injuries at the hands of petitioners. Later on, the matter was investigated into by the police. During investigation, on the statement made Dalip Singh- respondent No. 2 (in CRM M 19811 of 2010) a cross case was registered against Chamkaur Singh, Kulwinder Singh and others. Now, the matter has been compromised between the parties. Chamkaur Singh, Kulwinder Singh and Amarjit Singh are also present in Court today. Their respective affidavits have already been taken on record separately. In their affidavits, they have admitted the factum that with the intervention of the respectables, the matter has been compromised between the parties. Whereas, Dalip Singh, on whose statement a cross case was registered, is not present in Court, today, but his affidavit has already been taken on record vide CRM 52351 of 2010 in CRM M 19811 of 2010. In his affidavit, he too admitted the factum of the matter having been CRM M 19888 of 2010 3 compromised. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another-2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has observed as under:- “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 reduced 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 exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.” The Apex Court in the case of 'Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:- “6. We need to emphasize 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.” CRM M 19888 of 2010 4 In view of the settled proposition of law and in the facts of the present case, it is a fit case, where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to accept the compromise and exercise its inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR as well as the cross case arising out of the same to promote peace and harmony. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed and FIR No. 104 dated 22.04.2010 under Sections 326, 323, 324, 427, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code, P S Nakodar, District Jalandhar as well as counter version registered on the statement of Dalip Singh (respondent No. 2 in CRM M 19811 of 2010) in the aforesaid FIR as well as the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. A copy of the order be placed on the connected case. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 25.11.2010 mohan