CRM No. M 820 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 820 of 2011 Date of decision: 16.01.2012 Ashwani Kumar and another ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: None for the petitioners Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State Mr. Rupinderjit Singh, Advocate for the 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) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No. 98 dated 07.08.2010 under Section 427 IPC and Section 3 of SC/ST Act, 1989, registered at Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiapur, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. Vide this Court's order dated 08.02.2011, the parties were directed to be present before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate on 14.02.2011 or any other date convenient to the Court to record statements of the parties. CRM No. M 820 of 2011 2 The trial Court was also directed to record the statements of both the parties to its satisfaction to know its genuineness that the statements are not the result of any pressure or coercion in any manner. The trial Court was also directed to send a report with regard to validity or otherwise of the compromise effected between the parties before the next date of hearing. In pursuance to the said order, a report has been received from the trial Court. As per the said report, now, there is no dispute between the parties in case bearing FIR No. 98 dated 07.08.2010. The said compromise is without any coercion and pressure. It is also reported that a genuine compromise has been effected between the parties. 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 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:- CRM No. M 820 of 2011 3 “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.” Taking into account the allegations, compromise as well as report of the trial Court admitting the factum of the compromise arrived at between the parties, 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. 98 dated 07.08.2010 under Section 427 IPC and Section 3 of SC/ST Act, 1989, registered at Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiapur (P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 16.01.2012 mohan