IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-18618 of 2010 Date of Decision:8.9.2010 Subash and another .... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another .... Respondents And CRM M-18619 of 2010 Date of Decision:8.9.2010 Bhoop Singh and others .... Petitioners Versus Subash and others .... Respondents And CRM M-18620 of 2010 Date of Decision:8.9.2010 Bhoop Singh and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate. Ms. Priyanka Dalal, A.A.G. Haryana. Mr. Mohit Jaggi, 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.(Oral) By this common judgment, CRM M-18618 of 2010, CRM M- 18619 of 2010 and CRM M-18620 of 2010 shall be decided together wherein the prayer is for quashing of FIR No.174 dated 30.5.2004 under Sections 307/323/325/34 IPC Police Station Barwala, District Hisar, CRM M-18618 of 2010 -2- Criminal complaint No.2-I dated 5.1.2001 titled as “Smt. Sudesh v. Bhoop Singh and others pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar and FIR No.217 dated 13.9.2000 under Sections 323/324/34 IPC at Police Station Barwala, District Hisar and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The allegation in the FIR reads as under: “ My son Vijender was going to the shop for taking cold drink for him, then my son Subhash and his wife Sudesh started giving slaps and fist blows to my son Vijender in the street situated opposite to my house. On hearing noise, I came out and tried to rescue them. Then Subhash picked up brick and gave 2-3 blows on my head.” The allegation in the complaint is also of beating. The parties herein belong to one family. Complainant Subhash is son of petitioner Bhoop Singh in Crl. M. Nos.18619-M and 18620-M of 2010 whereas complainant Bhoop Singh is father of petitioner Subhash in Crl. M. No.18618-M of 2010. There was a dispute between the father, sons and daughter-in-law over a piece of land. Accordingly, FIRs and complaint in question were got registered by the parties against each other. However, the matter has been compromised. Compromise deed (Annexure P-2) authenticating the compromise has been placed on record in each of the petition. Affidavits of the parties authenticating the compromise have also been placed on record in each of the petition. As per the compromise deed/affidavits, they have no objection if the FIRs and complaint in question are quashed. It is further stated that the said compromise was entered into without any pressure and out of their own sweet will as the CRM M-18618 of 2010 -3- parties belong to one family. 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 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 CRM M-18618 of 2010 -4- litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” Normally, this Court would not quash an FIR under Section 307 IPC on the basis of compromise. However, each case is to be considered on its own facts and should not be thrown out at the threshold. Besides the fact that the complainant herein is the son of petitioner No.1 and the other complaint is by the father himself. The allegations in the FIR and the complaint even if accepted as true do not make out an offence under Section 307 IPC. Thus, in the above circumstances and taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties vide compromise deed Annexure P-2, the affidavits of the parties authenticating the compromise and particularly the fact that the parties belong to one family and they are father, sons and daughter-in-law, 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 FIR in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed and FIR No.174 dated 30.5.2004 under Sections 307/323/325/34 IPC Police Station Barwala, District Hisar, Criminal complaint No.2-I dated 5.1.2001 titled as “Smt. Sudesh v. Bhoop Singh and others pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar and FIR No.217 dated 13.9.2000 under Sections 323/324/34 IPC at Police Station Barwala, District Hisar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. A photo copy of this order be placed in the connected cases. 8.9.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE