Crl. Misc. No.M-13499 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-13499 of 2009 Date of Decision: 05.03.2010 Ashok Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Tarsem Singh ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sarbjit Kaur, Advocate for the respondent. ***** 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 complaint titled as Tarsem Singh vs. Ashok Kumar, complaint No.126/2 dated 01.09.2006 pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balachaur for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and summoning order P-2 with all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the abovesaid complaint on the basis of compromise. The respondent-complainant had filed a complaint dated 01.09.2008 in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate for prosecution of the petitioner for offence in terms of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the cheque given by the petitioner Crl. Misc. No.M-13499 of 2009 2 had not been honoured by the bank. Meanwhile, the petitioner had paid the entire amount towards the bounced cheque. The respondent-claimant had accepted the same. The compromise has been effected between the parties. An affidavit of Tarsem Singh son of Durga Dass, complainant has been filed, stating therein, that he has no objection, if the said complaint is quashed. A separate statement to that effect has also bee recorded. The offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is compoundable as per Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The dispute is 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 :- “ We need to emphasise that it is Crl. Misc. No.M-13499 of 2009 3 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 view of the allegations in the complaint and taking into account the compromise having been arrived at between the parties, a statement made before this Court, as well as, the affidavit filed by the complainant, it is a 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 complaint. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and complaint No.126/2 dated 01.09.2006 pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balachaur for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and summoning order P-2 with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 05.03.2010 JUDGE gurpreet