IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-19249 of 2010 Date of Decision:26.8.2010 Raja Rai @ Feena .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. A.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. F.S. Virk, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved for quashing of FIR No.38 dated 24.4.2006 registered under Sections 323/325/341/506/34 IPC at Police Station Bhogpur, District Jalandhar and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The FIR in question was got registered by respondent No.2 against the petitioner and others on the allegations that the petitioner alongwith others gave beatings to him as well as to his son and others. However, the matter was compromised with the intervention of the respectables and relatives vide compromise deed (Annexure P-2) dated 4.11.2009. In pursuance to the said compromise respondent No.2- complainant, Gurdeep Singh-injured, Surat Chand-Injured and Rinku Pal- injured did not support the prosecution version and the co-accused of the petitioner namely Sukhdev Singh, Sukhwinder Singh, Ronki Ram, Sham CRM M-19249 of 2010 -2- Lal and Gurpreet Singh were acquitted of the charges by the judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar vide judgment dated 23.11.2009 (Annexure P-3). However, the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender. Today, respondent No.2, who is present in the Court has made a statement that the matter has been compromised due to the intervention of the respectable and the said compromise was entered into without any pressure and out of his own sweet will. He has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others reported as (1980) 1 SCC 63, held that :- “29. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the Cr.P.C. or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.” While relying upon the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, this Court in the case of Jabanjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others (Crl. M. No.10033 of 2009 decide on 29.7.2009) quashed the proceedings declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender by observing as under: “Keeping in view the enunciation of law as referred to above and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case, once the matter has been compromised between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the prosecution. Accordingly, order dated 23.12.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar CRM M-19249 of 2010 -3- (Annexure P-3) declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender, FIR No.38 dated 5.7.2000, registered at Police Station Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar, under Sections 323,325,341,148,149 IPC (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner.” Similar view by was also held by this Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and another (CRM M 1238 of 2007, decided on 29.1.2007). Taking into account the fact that the co-accused of the petitioner have already been acquitted also coupled with the fact that the matter had been compromised, this Court in the cases of Sarbjit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another (CRM M 52033 of 2007, decided on 27.1.2009), Pushpa Rani v. State of Punjab and another ( CRM M 30341 of 2008, decided on 12.1.2010) and Sandeep Singh Brar and others v. State of Punjab and others (CRM M 28857 of 2008, decided on 12.2.2009) quashed the FIR even though the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender as all the disputes had been settled by way of compromise. It is a case where the co-accused of the petitioner are already acquitted. No useful purpose would be served in case the proceedings against the petitioner are allowed to continue as there is no chance of conviction of the petitioner as the prosecution witnesses have already turned hostile before the trial Court and the continuation of such proceedings against the petitioner will be wastage of valuable time of the Court. The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 CRM M-19249 of 2010 -4- has held that 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 not only in matrimonial discord but others as well, such compromise deserves to be accepted. It is further held 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.” In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008 (4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised 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 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.” Taking into account that the allegation in FIR, the statement of CRM M-19249 of 2010 -5- respondent No.2-complainant and particularly the fact that the co-accused of the petitioner have already been acquitted by the trial Court on the basis of compromise, 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 FIR in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.38 dated 24.4.2006 registered under Sections 323/325/341/506/34 IPC at Police Station Bhogpur, District Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. 26.8.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE