Crl.M.No.23929-M of 2010 #1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Order: 10.12.2010 Crl.M.No.23929-M of 2010 Vidya Nath .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents And Crl.M.No.26539-M of 2010 Manjit Kumar .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents And Crl.M.No.26709-M of 2010 Bharat Kumar .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents And Crl.M.No.26700-M of 2010 Jatish Kumar .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents And Crl.M.No.26666-M of 2010 Amarjit .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents And Crl.M.No.26652-M of 2010 Nanakjit .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents And Crl.M.No.26559-M of 2010 Harjit .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents Crl.M.No.23929-M of 2010 #2 And Crl.M.No.26755-M of 2010 Ram Singh .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Sarabjit Singh, Advocate. (in Crl.M.No.23929-M of 2010 for the petitioner). (in Crl.M.Nos.26539,26709,26700,26666, 26652,26559 & 26755 for the complainant). Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Deepak Nayyar, Advocate (in Crl.M.No.23929-M of 2010 for respondent No.2). (in Crl.M.Nos.26539,26709,26700,26666, 26652,26559 & 26755 for the petitioners). JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) By this common order, all the afore-mentioned eight petitions shall be disposed of together wherein prayer under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been made for quashing of FIR No.104 dated 18.6.2007 under Sections 379/323/506/148/149 IPC, P.S Islamabad, District Amritsar as well as cross case recorded in the same FIR relating to the occurrence on 18.6.2007 and the subsequent proceedings on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. As per allegations in the FIR case, accused-petitioners gave beatings to the complainant-Vidya Nath while abusing and further snatched 3 tollas golden chain from his neck and took out Rs.3400/- from the pocket of the complainant whereas as per allegations in the cross case lodged at the instance of Manjit Kumar, on 18.6.2007 at about 11.30, Vidya Nath along with other named persons attacked Manjit Kumar (complainant in cross case) and while inflicting injuries Crl.M.No.23929-M of 2010 #3 for damaging the shop of Vidya Nath, also snatched his two tollas gold chain besides taking out Rs.15,000/- from the locker of Manjit Kumar. Vide order dated 1.11.2010, this Court directed the learned trial Court to send report with regard to compromise in pursuance of which, a report/letter dated 18.11.2010 has been received from the JMIC, Amritsar which has been taken on record as Mark-A. It is stated in the report that both the parties have arrived at a compromise and they have no objection if the aforesaid FIR as well as the cross case are quashed on the basis of compromise. Learned state counsel, on instructions from SI Mangal Singh, states that it is version and cross version case and separate charges have been framed in this case. He further states that he is unable to raise any serious objection to the quashing of the FIR on the basis of the compromise since both the parties have arrived at a compromise and are not willing to support the prosecution case in both the versions. Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2003) 4 SCC 675, B.S Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Another has made it explicitly clear in para 15 of its judgment that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or effect the powers under Section 482 of the Code. A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 Crl.M.No.23929-M of 2010 #4 has held that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash an FIR disclosing the commission of non compoundable offences. The relevant extracts read as under:- “The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C., which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.” Hon'ble Apex Court in another case in J.T 2008(9) S.C 192 Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another while relying upon its decision in B.S. Joshi's case(supra) has also held that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of criminal proceedings and the continuance of the same after compromise between the parties would be a futile exercise. Similar views were expressed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abot v. State of Punjab 2008(4) SCC 582, the relevant extract of which is as under:- “We need to emphasise 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 Crl.M.No.23929-M of 2010 #5 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.” Keeping in view the above settled legal position and taking into account the fact that both the parties , who are related to each other and co-villagers and they have desired to live in peace and harmony and carry on with their lives without any ill will or rancour by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, it is evident that it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of the FIR and the cross case in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed and FIR No.104 dated 18.6.2007 under Sections 379/323/506/148/149 IPC, P.S Islamabad, District Amritsar as well as cross case recorded in the same FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. A copy of this order be placed on all the connected cases. December 10, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE