IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-7533 of 2011 Date of Decision:26.5.2011 Surjit Singh and another .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. I.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Brar, A.A.G. Punjab. Mr. I.S. Mann, 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) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 153 dated 18.12.2000 under Sections 307/34 IPC and 27/54/59 of Arms Act at Police Station Sadar Moga Tehsil and District Moga 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. However, the matter has been compromised between the parties due to the invervention of the respectable of the area. Compromise deed (Annexure P-2) has also been placed on record to this effect. The parties are present in the Court along with their counsel. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has placed on record the affidavit of respondent No.2 admitting the factum of compromise. CRM M-7533 of 2011 -2- As per the said affidavit, respondent No.2 has no objection if the said FIR is quashed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that he has no instructions. However, he does not dispute that the public prosecutor had made a statement before the trial Court that the police had filed untraced report in this case and the accused is no more required in this case. On this account, the matter was dismissed on 1.8.2001 as having been rendered infructuous with a direction that in case the accused is required, seven days prior notice will be given. Thereafter, neither the petitioners have been summoned nor required by the Court till date. No doubt, this is a case under Sections 307 IPC and 27/54/59 of the Arms Act but admittedly the police had submitted the untrace report in the case and the FIR is still pending no final order has been passed on the untraced report till date. Even otherwise, the matter has been compromised between the parties. 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 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:- CRM M-7533 of 2011 -3- “ 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.” Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana reported as 2003(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 888 while relying on the judgment titled as Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. [(1998) 5 SCC 749], that this Court with reference to Bhajan Lal' case observed that the guidelines laid therein as to where the court will exercise jurisdiction under Section CRM M-7533 of 2011 -4- 482 of the Code could not be inflexible or laying rigid formula to be followed by the court. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is well settled that these powers have no limits. Of course, where there is more power, it becomes necessary of exercise utmost care and caution while invoking such powers. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. [(1998) 1 SCC 692], it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings. Thus, taking into account that the matter has been compromised between the parties, the police had already submitted the untrace report and the affidavit of respondent No.2 stating that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed, 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. 153 dated 18.12.2000 under Sections 307/34 IPC and 27/54/59 of CRM M-7533 of 2011 -5- Arms Act at Police Station Sadar Moga Tehsil and District Moga and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. 26.5.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE