IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-21582 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 21 .08.2009 Raju Thakur and others ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Rajeev Anand, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. Through this order, I propose to dispose of Crl.Misc.No.M- 21582 of 2009 (Raju Thakur and others vs. State of Punjab and others) and Crl.Misc.No.21599 of 2009 (Jasvir Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others). The prayer by the petitioners in these two petitions is for quashing of FIR No.75 dated 28.4.2009 registered against them under Sections 307/324/323/148/149 IPC at Police Station Samrala, District Ludhiana. However, later on Section 307 IPC was deleted at the time of presentation of challan. Counsel for the petitioners contends that a compromise has been entered into between the petitioners and respondents No.2 and 3. Respondent No.2 Gurcharan Singh is the complainant while respondent No.3-Sukhchain Singh is one of the persons who were injured. He submits that the parties have amicably resolved their dispute and as of now, there is Crl.Misc.No.M-21582 of 2009 -2- no heart-burning between them and to further remove this finally, the present petition has been filed for quashing of the F.I.R. He contends that in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and & Anr. 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, the present petition deserves to be quashed. Counsel for the respondent submits that in the light of the compromise dated 4.5.2009 (Annexure P-2), the respondents, i.e. complainant and the injured do not want to press the FIR and the allegations made therein against the petitioners. He further contends that respondents have no objection to the present petition being allowed. Respondents- Gurcharan Singh son of Pala Singh resident of Village Peer Mohammad, Police Station Makhu, District Ferozepur and Sukhchain Singh son of Banta Singh resident of Bhan Singh Colony, Gali No.4, Faridkot are present in Court and identified by their counsel. Their affidavits have also been taken on record. They state that they have no objection to the quashing of the FIR which was registered against the petitioners on the statement of Gurcharan Singh-respondent No.2. They acknowledge the fact of compromise having been entered into between them. It is further stated by them that the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the light of the compromise. In view of the fact that the parties have resolved their dispute amicably and that too without nursing any grudge against each other, the pendency of the FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom should not in such circumstances be an impediment in smooth functioning of the Society especially when the parties have compromised the issue. Crl.Misc.No.M-21582 of 2009 -3- 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), has 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 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.” Therefore, in view of the discussion above, since the parties Crl.Misc.No.M-21582 of 2009 -4- have amicably settled the matter, which is otherwise in the interest of justice and appears to have been effected to promote peace and harmony amongst the parties, the instant petition, namely, Crl.Misc.No.M-21582 of 2009 (Raju Thakur and others vs. State of Punjab and others) and Crl.Misc.No.21599 of 2009 (Jasvir Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others) are allowed. Consequently, impugned FIR No.75 dated 28.4.2009 registered against the petitioners in both the cases under Sections 307/324/323/148/149 IPC at Police Station Samrala, District Ludhiana and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. It has been stated by the counsel for the petitioners that petitioners in Crl.Misc.No.M-21582 of 2009, namely, Raju Thakur son of Shiva Bahadur, Rajju son of Surju Mandal, Raghbir son of Dungar Singh, Jagdish son of Ramu Ram are in custody and lodged in Central Jail, Ludhiana. In view of the quashing of the FIR, the petitioners are directed to be released from the Central Jail, Ludhiana, provided there is no other impediment in release of the said petitioners. August 21, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters. Yes/No.