CRM No. M 3422 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 3422 of 2009 Date of decision: 01.02.2011 Amit Kumar Jain ........Petitioner Versus State of UT, Chandigarh and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. J S Mehandiratta, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. P K Khindria, Advocate for UT, Chandigarh Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for respondent No. 2 - complainant -.- 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? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) CRM No. 48228 of 2010 The present application has been filed by respondent No. 2 for placing on record compromise deed dated 22.12.2008 and also for directing the petitioner to make the payment of Rs.50,000/- to respondent No. 2 in pursuance to the said compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in pursuance to CRM No. M 3422 of 2009 2 the said compromise, he has brought, a demand draft bearing No. 170152 dated 29.10.2011, issued by Punjab State Coop Bank Ltd., for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. The same was handed over to respondent No. 2 in the Court itself. Respondent No. 2 has duly received the same. In view of the above, CM is allowed and compromise dated 22.12.2008 is taken on record. Main case This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint dated 23.05.2007 under Section 193 IPC titled as Court of Ram Kumar Singla JMIC, Chandigarh v. Amit Kumar Jain filed against the present petitioner on the basis of the compromise dated 22.12.2008 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure R-2/1. The complainant is present in Court along with his counsel. Today, he suffered a statement in Court, stating therein, that on the basis of his application dated 16.03.2004, the aforesaid complaint was filed against the present petitioners. Now, the matter has been compromised and he has duly received a demand draft bearing No. 170152 dated 29.01.2011, issued by Punjab State Coop Bank Limited for a sum of Rs.50,000/- in pursuance to the said compromise and as such, he has no objection if the said complaint is quashed. 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 CRM No. M 3422 of 2009 3 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.” The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainant has no objection if the said complaint and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. Taking into account the allegations, compromise dated 22.12.2008 (R2/1) as well as statement of the complainant, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present compliant and CRM No. M 3422 of 2009 4 subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the above said settled proposition of law. Accordingly,the present petition is allowed and complaint dated 23.05.2007 under Section 193 IPC titled as Court of Ram Kumar Singla JMIC, Chandigarh v. Amit Kumar Jain and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 01.02.2011 mohan