IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 34987 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: October 31, 2011 Madhu Sudan Bohra & others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. SP Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab, for the State. Mr. Arun Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.194, dated 25.7.2009, registered under Sections 452, 323, 506, 427 and 34 IPC, at Police Station City Rajpura, District Patiala. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of this FIR on the basis of a compromise. Copy of the compromise is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2. The complainant, who is respondent No.2, has lodged an FIR against the petitioner. As per the allegation in the FIR, while the complainant was resting in his house after taking medicine, the petitioners had entered into his house by opening the gate and Crl. Misc. No. M- 34987 of 2010 -2- used criminal force against him on the ground that he was a witness in the case filed by Sunit Rani against Radhey Shyam. The petitioners allegedly were armed with lathis and used these weapons to given four blows to the complainant. The complainant raised raula and was rescued by one Raj Kumar Chawla. While the case was pending, the respectables of the area have intervened and the parties have reached a compromise. It is stated that they have now settled the issue and want to live in peace and harmony as good neibhours. The compromise has been reduced into writing and copy thereof is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2. In order to test the authenticity of the compromise, the parties were directed to appear before the Magistrate at Rajpura. They have accordingly appeared before Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura on 25.8.2011 and have recorded their respective statements. Copy of the statements have also been received from the Trial Court along with the report. Statement of the complainant- Bhim Sain has been recorded, who has stated that he has seen the copy of the compromise and has understood the contents thereof, which he had executed. He has further confirmed that no criminal case is pending against him otherwise. On the part of the petitioners, statement of Madhu Sudan Bohara has been recorded, who has also confirmed the compromise and further stated that the petitioners have compromised the matter without any pressure or coercion in any manner. Once the parties have reached compromise and settled their dispute, it would be futile to allow this prosecution to continue. Crl. Misc. No. M- 34987 of 2010 -3- The Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, has held that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot have any fetters and it cannot be eclipsed by any contingencies and the same cannot be made diminutive in sense and substance and cannot be a hostage to one class or category of cases. As held in this case, compromise in a modern society is the sine-qua-non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is a soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 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. A case, therefore, is made out to quash the FIR No.194, dated 25.7.2009, registered under Sections 452, 323, 506, 427 and 34 IPC. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. FIR No.194, dated 25.7.2009, registered under Sections 452, 323, 506, 427 and 34 IPC and all subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed. October 31, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE