IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-3424 of 2010 Date of Decision:3.3.2010 Gurdial Singh and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Manjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. P.S. Paul, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 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) The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved for quashing of cross case Rapt No.27 dated 16.12.2000 under Sections 323,324,452,34 IPC at Police Station Nangal recorded by the police in case FIR No.125 dated 16.12.2000 under Sections 325,342,452,148,149 IPC at Police Station Nangal and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. In the cross case, the petitioners have been convicted by the trial court vide judgment dated 25.3.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Anandpur Sahib. Now, the appeal is pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Ropar. The appeal has also been preferred by respondent No.2-complainant. Now, the parties herein have amicably settled the matter with the intervention of elders, family members and the respectable of the village. A separate statement of respondent No.2-complainant has also been recorded to the same effect in the Court today. As per the statement, respondent No.2-complainant has no objection if the conviction and CRM M-3424 of 2010 -2- sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class is set aside and the petitioners are acquitted of the charges. Affidavit of the complainant Niranjan Kaur has also been filed. The same is taken on record stating that she has no objection if the petitioners are acquitted. The Apex Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2008(2) RCR (Criminl) 910 while quashing the FIR and all proceedings arising out of the same held that the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. In that case also the petitioners were convicted under Section 498-A IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment of 18 months. An appeal was filed against the conviction order and during the pendency of the appeal, the parties had settled their differences. However, they filed petition before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint as well as conviction order on account of the compromise. The High Court dismissed the same. Aggrieved, they challenged the same before the Apex Court. The Apex Court accepted the compromise and quashed the FIR and all the proceedings arising out of the same, as well as order of conviction. This Court in the case of Sukhwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjan and another, 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 991 while relying upon the judgment of Khursheed and another v. State of U.P. And another, 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 495 allowed the petitioners to compound the offence under Section 452 IPC during the pendency of the appeal. In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, 2008 (4) S.C. Case 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under:- “ We need to emphasise that it is a perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal CRM M-3424 of 2010 -3- 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.” Taking into account the allegation in the FIR, the statement of complainant recorded separately and affidavit placed on record, there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to accept the compromise and allow the parties to live amicably which shall reduce the friction in the society and promote peace and harmony. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as compromise effected between the parties, the parties are allowed to compound the offence. Accordingly, the parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Court where the appeal is pending. Thereafter, the Appellate Court shall pass appropriate orders in the light of permission granted by this Court to the parties to compound the offence. Accordingly the present petition is allowed. 3.3.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE