CRM No. M 7438 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 7438 of 2011 Date of decision: 05.04.2011 Sham Lal and another ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. J S Brar, DAG, Punjab Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for respondent No. 2 - complainant -.- 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) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 160 dated 03.12.2010 under Section 306 IPC, P S Moga Sadar (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 19.02.2011 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. The complainant as well as other legal heirs (wife, son and two daughters) are present in Court along with counsel and have filed their CRM No. M 7438 of 2011 2 respective affidavits in Court today, stating therein, a written compromise has been effected between them and they do not want to take any action against the petitioners. It has also been stated by them that they have no objection if the said FIR is quashed. FIR No. 160 dated 03.12.2010 under Section 306 IPC, P S Moga Sadar, District Moga was got registered by respondent o. 2 against the petitioners on the allegation that the father of respondent No. 2, namely, Sukhchain Singh committed suicide as the petitioners were not returning his and his family's money which they have to recover from the petitioners. From the reading of the FIR, no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out against the petitioners. Section 306 IPC relates to the abetment of suicide and abetment has been defined under Section 107 IPC and perusal of the provisions of Section 107 IPC shows that there is no abetment on the part of the petitioners in the present case. At the time of issuance of notice of motion, learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that an un-traced report had been prepared in the present case. Moreover, the matter has now been amicably compromised. 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 CRM No. M 7438 of 2011 3 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 as well as other legal heirs of the deceased have no objection if the said FIR is quashed. Taking into account the allegations, compromise dated 19.02.2011 as well as affidavits of the complainant and other legal heirs as also the fact that no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same being misuse of the process of law. CRM No. M 7438 of 2011 4 Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 160 dated 03.12.2010 under Section 306 IPC, P S Moga Sadar (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 05.04.2011 mohan