IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M. No.M-29958 of 2009 Date of Decision:19.3.2010 Satnam Singh and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and Anr. .... Respondents And Crl. M. No.M-34436 of 2009 Date of Decision:19.3.2010 Narinder Singh and ors. .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and Anr. .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. B.S. Sehra, Advocate. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. Harit Sharma, Advocate. **** 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. The instant petitions have been filed for quashing of FIR No.146 dated 13.11.2004 registered under Sections 323, 324, 34 IPC at Police Station Dakha, Tehsil and District Ludhiana as well as counter version given in the aforesaid FIR and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The facts are being referred from Crl. M. No.M-29958 of 2009. It is case of version and cross version. Out of the four accused, only three accused have preferred the Crl. M. No.29958-M of 2009 for quashing of FIR as one of the accused had died. Even accused No.4, Crl. M. No.M-29958 of 2009 -2- namely Sukhdev Singh son of Nahar Singh, who has since expired, was named in the FIR . A cross case against Narinder Singh ( complainant in the FIR ) and six others was also registered. Narinder Singh and all the six other persons have filed Crl. M. No.34436-M of 2009 for quashing of cross version. The said cross version has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. The compromise deed has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. Vide order dated 15.1.2010, the parties were directed to appear before the District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on 3.2.2010. It was further directed that the District and Sessions Judge shall record the statements of the complainant and other aggrieved/affected persons and submit his report as to whether the said compromise is genuine or not. It was further directed that the District and Sessions Judge shall also report as to whether complainant Narinder Singh son of Sukhjit Singh, resident of village Dakha, Tehsil and District Ludhiana is the same person as Narinder Singh son of Sukhjant Singh. In pursuance to the said direction, the learned District and Sessions Ludge, Ludhiana, has submitted his report dated 9.2.2010. As per the report, the parties have entered into compromise with the intervention of respectable and it appears that the compromise is genuine one. The statement of the complainant as well as the affected parties was duly recorded except Jasjot Kaur, who is stated to be an injured. However, injured-Jasjot Kaur has filed her affidavit in the Court and the same has been taken on record. As per the affidavit, she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. A separate statement of Jasjot Kaur has also been recorded in the Court today to the same effect. Learned District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, in his report also submitted that the statement of Narinder Singh has been recorded and he produced his Matriculation Crl. M. No.M-29958 of 2009 -3- certificate, driving licence and ration card from which identity stands established and thus, Narinder Singh son of Sukhjit Singh is the same person as Narinder Singh. Accordingly, it is apparent that the matter has been compromise and the said compromise is genuine one. 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 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 v. State of Punjab 2008 (4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under:- “ 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 Crl. M. No.M-29958 of 2009 -4- 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 settled position of law and 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 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR in the interest of justice to promote peace and harmony. The compromise is entered into without any pressure. Accordingly, the instant petitions are allowed and FIR No.146 dated 13.11.2004 registered under Sections 323, 324, 34 IPC at Police Station Dakha, Tehsil and District Ludhiana as well as counter version given in the aforesaid FIR and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. A photo copy of this order be placed on the connected case. 19.3.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE