CRM M 37700 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- Date of decision: 13.05.2011 1. CRM M 37700 of 2010 Sukhwant Singh alias Sukha and others ........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) 2. CRM M 6579 of 2011 Gurdev Singh and others .......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. K S Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners (CRM M 37700 of 2010) Mr. J S Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioners (CRM M 6579 of 2011) Mr. J S Brar, AAG, Punjab for the respondent- State Mr. K S Sidhu, Advocate for respondent NO. 2 (CRM M 6579 of 2011) Mr. J S Dadwal, Advocate for respondent No. 2 (CRM M 37700 of 2011) -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) CRM M 37700 of 2010 2 Both the aforesaid petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the same arise out of the same FIR. This is a version and cross version in the same FIR. In CRM M 37700 of 2010, the petitioners prayed for quashing of FIR No. 05 dated 25.03.2010 under Section 308, 323, 506, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, Police Station PAU, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana which was got registered by respondent No. 2 against the petitioners on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. Whereas, in CRM M 6579 of 2011, the petitioner prayed for quashing of cross version registered vide DDR No. 20 dated 25.03.2010 under Section 279, 337, 323, 417, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC in the said FIR on the statement of Ram Babu. The parties are present in Court. Affidavits of the complainant and cross versioner have been filed in Court today, stating therein, that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and they have no objection if the version and cross version in the said FIR 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 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 CRM M 37700 of 2010 3 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 emphasized 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 utilized 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 and aggrieved person have no objection if the said FIR is quashed. Taking into account the allegations, compromise as well as affidavit of the complainant and the cross versioner, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the above said settled proposition of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 05 dated 25.03.2010 under Section 308, 323, 506, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, Police Station PAU, Ludhiana, District CRM M 37700 of 2010 4 Ludhiana as well as the cross version registered vide DDR No. 20 dated 25.03.2010 under Section 279, 337, 323, 417, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC in the said FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 13.05.2011 mohan