CRM-M No. 35963 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No. 35963 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 17.10.2011 Jai Bhagwan and another ...Petitioners Versus Veer Bhan .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present:- Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. **** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. This petition has been preferred for quashing of complaint No. 2/2009 dated 22.12.2000 titled Veer Bhan Versus Kasturi Devi and others under sections 420, 465 468, 471, 120-B IPC charge dated 04.12.2009 (Annexure P-3) and consequential proceeding arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 01.11.2010 (Annexure P-4) entered into between the parties before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Karnal. It is a contention of the counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties complainant-Veer Bhan has no objection to the quashing of criminal complaint preferred by him against the petitioners, Jai Bhagwan son of Arjan Dev and Manga son of Kishan Lal. He contends that the CRM-M No. 35963 of 2010 (O&M) -2- compromise has indeed been given effect to and Regular Second Appeal No. 2342 of 2009 titled Veer Bhan Versus Kasturi Devi has also been disposed of in the light of the compromise vide order dated 13th May, 2011. He contends that the continuance of the criminal complaint against the petitioners would not be conducive to the amicable settlement which has been entered into between the parties where the parties have agreed to dissolve all their disputes to earn peace and, accordingly, he prays for allowing the present petition. Counsel for respondent No.2-Veer Bhan does not dispute the contention as raised by the counsel for the petitioner. Veer Bhan son of Keoli resident of Village Salwan, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal is present in the Court and has been identified by his counsel. Veer Bhan states that he does not have any objection to the quashing of complaint No. 2/2009 which he had preferred against both the petitioners. He contends that the compromise has been given effect to and on deposit of Rs. 6.00 lacs, as per the compromise, possession of land has also been granted to him. The said amount of Rs. 6.00 lacs is deposited with the Trial Court in the Court of Sh. Hem Raj Verma, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal. The demand draft is to expire on 18th October, 2011 which can be withdrawn by the petitioners herein. He further contends that in case, Raghubir Singh-accused No. 5 and Kesho Ram- accused No. 6 in criminal complaint No. 2/2009 file a petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing of complaint, he shall have no objection to the prayer made in that petition also. Now, there is no dispute CRM-M No. 35963 of 2010 (O&M) -3- between the accused-respondents in the criminal complaint filed by him in the light of compromise and, therefore, the present petition may be allowed. 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 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 CRM-M No. 35963 of 2010 (O&M) -4- 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 the light of statement of complainant -Veer Bhan son of Keoli and in the light of compromise entered into between the parties, the interest of justice would be duly served by putting an end to the present litigation as the parties have by amicable settlement resolved the dispute and such resolution of dispute would be conducive to the well being of the society and would further curtail subsequent dispute which may have arisen and could be an off shot of their present dispute. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Criminal Complaint No. 2/2009 dated 22.12.2000 titled Veer Bhan Versus Kasturi Devi and others under sections 420, 465 468, 471, 120-B IPC pending in the Court of of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal (Annexure P-1) is here by quashed. It would not be out of way to mention here that in the Criminal complaint, Kasturi Devi daughter of Sheoni wife of Krishan Lal and Krishni Devi daughter of Sheoni wife of Arjan Devi-accused No. 1 and 2, in the said complaint were not summoned as accused by the trial Court and therefore, no orders qua them are being passed. All consequential proceedings arising because of the said complaint shall also be deemed to have been quashed. The petitioners are at liberty to take the demand draft CRM-M No. 35963 of 2010 (O&M) -5- deposited by the complainant-Veer Bhan before Sh. Hem Raj Verma, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal. Copy of this order be given to the counsel for the parties under the signatures of Special Secretary of the Court. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 17.10.2011 JUDGE shabha