CRM No.M-31489 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-31489 of 2011 Date of Decision : 19.12.2011 Raghbir Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus Veer Bhan ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present :Mr. Yogesh Choudhary, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Jaswinder Singh Randhawa, Advocate, for the respondent. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of Criminal Complaint No.2 of 2009 dated 22.12.2009 titled as 'Veer Bhan Vs. Kasturi Devi and others' under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of a compromise dated 01.11.2010 before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Karnal, which has been entered into between the respondent- complainant and the main accused in the complaint, copy whereof has been appended as Annexre P-5. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of the compromise dated 01.11.2010 entered into between the respondent-Veer Bhan and other co-accused except for the two petitioners herein, this Court in CRM No.M-35963 of 2010 titled as 'Jai Bhagwan and another Vs. Veer Bhan' on the basis of the statement given by the complainant-Veer Bhan in this Court, quashed the complaint and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. He contends that the CRM No.M-31489 of 2011 -2- present petitioners have no personal interest in the matter or in the property in question and the respondent-complainant in the present case has also no objection to the quashing of the complaint qua the petitioners as well. He accordingly, prays that present petition may be allowed. Reply of respondent-complainant has been filed in Court in the form of an affidavit dated 19.12.2011, wherein the factum of compromise stands admitted. It has further been stated that the complainant has no objection to the quashing of the complaint, which is prayed for in the present petition. Complainant-Veer Bhan is present in Court and has been identified by his counsel. He states that in the light of the compromise entered into between the parties, he has no objection to the quashing of the complaint against these two petitioners, who are only left out co- accused. He admits the factum of the petition filed by the other petitioners, who were co-accused in CRM No.M-35963 of 2010 titled as 'Jai Bhagwan and another Vs. Veer Bhan' and the passing of the order dated 17.10.2011, wherein complaint stood quashed qua those petitioners. He has further stated that the present petition may be allowed and the Criminal Complaint No.2 of 2009 dated 22.12.2009 along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed. A Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2007(3) RCR(Criminal) 1052, while discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ,even in non-compoundable offence(s), it was held as under:- “28. The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice CRM No.M-31489 of 2011 -3- 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 reduces 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 by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation. 29. 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.” In view of the above, present petition is allowed and the Criminal Complaint No.2 of 2009 dated 22.12.2009 titled as 'Veer Bhan Vs. Kasturi Devi and others' under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120- B IPC along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 19.12.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) adhikari JUDGE