Crl. Misc. No.M-36568 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-36568 of 2010 Date of Decision: 01.02.2011 Shivdeep Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. S.S. Khaira, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Gurveen H. Singh, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. Umesh Kumar Kanwar, 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. This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR No.76 dated 09.09.2010 registered under Sections 420/34 IPC and Sections 7/13(1) E/13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act registered at Police Station Division No.2, Pathankot, District Gurdaspur. Normally, the FIR under Sections 7/13(1) E/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act should not be quashed on the basis of compromise. However, the facts and circumstances of the present case are somewhat different. The allegations are against petitioner No.1. The FIR reads as under :- “ Affidavit Punjab 06AA 986417, I Charanjeet Singh son of Sh. Kulwant Singh resident of Village Crl. Misc. No.M-36568 of 2010 2 Babehali Tehsil and District Gurdaspur and stating that (1) on 02.08.2010, I joined as Conductor in P.C. 53, Jalandhar 2 Depot. (2) I have paid ` 50,000/- for seeking job to a man named Shivdeep Singh resident of Arya Nagar Dina Nagar who is posted as conductor on contract basis at PC 62. (3) This man received money as a corruption.” It is evident from perusal of the FIR that the allegations are only against petitioner No.1. He is not holding any influential position. He himself is only a Conductor and that also on contract basis. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that his services already stand terminated being on contract basis. He is hardly in a position to get anyone a job. The very allegation is therefore absurd on the face of it. Section 420 IPC, in any case, is compoundable. Moreover, the matter having been compromised, there shall be no complainant to corroborate the vague allegation made against the petitioner. The continuation of the trial will be nothing but a waste of time as it is not likely to result in any conviction and in the absence of the complainant, the outcome of the said trial is obvious. In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. 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 Crl. Misc. No.M-36568 of 2010 3 matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” The complainant has filed his affidavit stating therein that the said FIR was lodged due to misunderstanding. Thus, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the matter alive. The complainant himself is not supporting the prosecution version. The allegation on the face of it appear to be doubtful. In view of the facts and circumstances as narrated above and in view of the matter having been compromised and the affidavit of the complainant that the said FIR was registered on the basis of misunderstanding, as well as, taking into account the judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court rendered in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot (supra), as well as, keeping in mind the circumstances of the case rendering the very allegation doubtful, there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of the FIR. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.76 dated 09.09.2010 registered under Sections 420/34 IPC and Sections 7/13 (1) E/13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act registered at Police Station Division No.2, Pathankot, District Gurdaspur is hereby quashed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 01.02.2011 JUDGE gurpreet