CRM No. M 32991 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 32991 of 2010 Date of decision: 25.11.2010 Hem Singh ........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mrs. Baljit Mann, Advocate for the petitioner Ms Preeti Chaudhary, AAG, Haryana for the respondent - State Mr. S S Siao, Advocate for respondent No. 2 - complainant -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.322 dated 01.10.1996 under Section 279, 337, 201, 182, 34 of Indian Penal Code, PS Pehowa, District Kurukshetra which was got registered on the statement of one Santokh Singh who is stated to be a passerby and respondent No. 2 Jagtar Singh got injury in that occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case, the said FIR was registered on the statement of one Santokh Singh, CRM No. M 32991 of 2010 2 who is stated to be a passerby and as such, he could not be arrayed as respondent. Whereas, respondent No. 2 is the injured. In pursuance to the order dated 11.11.2010 passed by this Court, affidavit of injured - Jagtar Singh has been filed in Court today. The same is taken on record. He is also present in Court today. In his affidavit, it is stated that the matter has been compromised with the present petitioner- Hem Singh and he has no objection if the said FIR is quashed against him. The same is taken on record. As per the allegations in the FIR, complainant Santokh Singh, a passerby, saw that one motorcycle being driven by Jaspal Singh co- accused had hit Jagtar Singh and caused him injuries, whereas, the petitioner was sitting on the pillion. It is pointed out by the learned State Counsel that petitioner is a proclaimed offender. He lives abroad. The matter has been compromised. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney vs. 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 judgement of the Apex Court, this Court in the case of Jobanjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and others (Crl. M No. 10033 of 2009, decided on 29.07.2009) quashed the proceedings declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender by observing as under:- “Keeping in view the enunciation of law as referred to CRM No. M 32991 of 2010 3 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 (Annexure P-3) declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender, FIR No. 38 dated 05.07.2000, registered at Police Station Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar, under Sections 323, 325, 341, 148, 149 IPOC (Annexure P1) 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 vs. State of Punjab and another (CRM M 1238 of 2007, decided on 29.01.2007). Taking into account 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 27.01.2009), Pushpa Rani v. State of Punjab and another (CRM M 30341 of 2008, decided on 12.01.2010) and Sandeep Singh Brar and others v. State of Punjab and others (CRM M 28857 of 2008, decided on 12.02.2009) quashed the FIR even though the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender as all the disputes had been settled by way of compromise. 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 observed as under:- “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. CRM No. M 32991 of 2010 4 is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduced 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 exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.” The Apex Court in the case of 'Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:- “6. We need to emphasize 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.” The present dispute is purely personal in nature and the compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The injured has no objection if the said FIR is quashed. Taking into account the allegations as well as the affidavit filed by the injured, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the CRM No. M 32991 of 2010 5 present FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same, in view of the above settled proposition of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 322 dated 01.10.1996 under Section 279, 337, 201, 182, 34 of Indian Penal Code, PS Pehowa, District Kurukshetra and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed qua the present petitioner. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 25.11.2010 mohan