Crl. Misc.No.M 30152 of 2010 # 1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAT AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc.No.M 30152 of 2010 Date of Decision:-26.11.2010 Ranjit Kumar & Anr. ......Petitioners. Versus State of Punjab & Anr. ......Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab. *** JASWANT SINGH, J. Prayer is under section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of FIR No.68 dated 31.03.2009 under Sections 323, 325, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 307 IPC added later on registered with Police Station Model Town, District Ludhiana and all other consequential proceedings arising out of the same on the basis of compromise dated 9.9.2010(Annexure P-4). As per allegations in the FIR levelled by complainant-Mrs. Asha Rani, on 4.3.2009 petitioner Ranjit Kumar had a quarrel with her and her son Sonu in the street and got registered FIR against the respondent no.2-complainant and during the investigation of said FIR the house of the respondent-complainant was being searched by the police party. On Crl. Misc.No.M 30152 of 2010 # 2# intervention by the respectables of the mohalla police official conducting search went back. Complainant along with her mother Pal Kaur was standing on the roof of her house and at about 12 noon petitioners-Ranjit Kumar and his uncle Subash Chand came to the complainant at the roof of her house and started quarreling with the complainant. When complainant told the petitioners not to enter into arguments with her as the case is pending in the court, both the petitioners threatened her and pulled her down from the roof which caused hurt to her spinal cord. Thereupon the present FIR was registered. Learned counsel submits that even otherwise from the material place on record during the investigation, it is evident that no offence under Section 307 IPC would be attracted. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the material collected in the investigation, prima facie the contention that the offence under Section 307 IPC would not be attracted appears to be correct. Upon notice of motion parties appeared and were directed to approach the learned Illaqa Magistrate by making appropriate application for getting their statements recorded in terms of the compromise and who shall submit its report regarding the genuineness of the compromise. Report (Mark-A) in the shape of letter dated 26.10.2010 of learned District & Sessions Judge, Ludhiana duly accompanied by attested copies of statements of complainant as well as the petitioners-accused has been received wherein it is stated that the parties appeared before that court and suffered statements recorded separately in terms of the compromise thereby stated that the matter between the parties has been compromised and complainant has no objection if the aforesaid FIR and all consequential Crl. Misc.No.M 30152 of 2010 # 3# proceedings are quashed against the petitioners. At the time of hearing today respondent no.2-complainant Asha Rani is present in the court today and she has been identified by Head Constable Parminder Singh, No.1234, Police Station Model Town, Ludhiana. She has suffered statement recorded separately to the effect that she had compromise the matter with petitioners in the aforesaid FIR and have no objection if the aforesaid FIR and all consequential proceedings are quashed against the petitioners. From the report submitted as well as the statement of the complainant recorded separately today, it is evident that the dispute between the petitioners-accused and the complainant has been amicably resolved by entering into compromise wherein the complainant has stated that he has no objection if the present FIR against the petitioners-accused is quashed. Learned State Counsel on instructions from HC Parminder Singh submits that challan is yet to be presented and is unable to raise any serious objection in view of the statements recorded in terms of the aforesaid compromise whereby the complainant is not willing to support the case of the prosecution. Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2003)4 SCC 675 B.S. Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Another has made it explicitly clear in para 15 of its judgment that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or effect the powers under Section 482 of the Code. A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has also held Crl. Misc.No.M 30152 of 2010 # 4# that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash an FIR disclosing the commission of non- compoundable offences. The relevant extracts read 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.” Hon'ble Apex Court in another case in J.T. 2008(9) S.C. 192 Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another while relying upon its decision in B.S. Joshi's case(supra) has also held that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of criminal proceedings and the continuance of the same after compromise between the parties would be a futile exercise. Similar views were expressed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abot v. State of Punjab 2008(4) SCC 582, the relevant extract of which is 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 Crl. Misc.No.M 30152 of 2010 # 5# 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.” Keeping in view the above settled legal position and taking into account the fact that prima facie offence under Section 307 of IPC is not attracted and that both the parties have desired to live in peace and harmony and carry on with their lives without any ill will or rancour by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, it is evident that it is a fit case where there is no legal impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of the FIR in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.68 dated 31.03.2009 under Sections 323, 325, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 307 IPC added later on registered with Police Station Model Town, District Ludhiana and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed against the petitioners. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE 26th November, 2010 Vinay