CRM No. M 19823 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 19823 of 2010 Date of decision: 14.08.2010 Akashdeep Singh Bhandari ........Petitioner Versus Union Territory, Chandgarh and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate for for the petitioner Ms Aashima Mor, Advocate for the respondent - UT Ms Rajan Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No. 2 Mr. Vivek K Thakur, Advocate for respondent No. 3 - 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 is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.595 dated 05.12.2001 under Sections 188, 328 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh which was got registered by respondent No. 3 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 07.07.2010 arrived CRM No. M 19823 of 2010 2 at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. A separate statement of complainant-Amardeep Singh alias Aman is also got recorded in the Court. Complainant has also filed his reply in the form of affidavit stating therein that with the intervention of friends and well wishers, the parties have reached an amicable settlement and have resolved their dispute. He has no objection if the present F.I.R is quashed. The same is taken on record. Respondent No. 2 - Surjinder Singh, who was injured in the said occurrence has also got recorded his statement in Court today stating therein that he has no objection if the aforesaid FIR is quashed. A short reply by way of affidavit has also been filed by him stating therein that he has compounded the offence against the petitioner and has no objection if the FIR is quashed. The FIR reads as under:- “We had taken 2-3 pegs each, in the meanwhile Surjinder Singh alias Abhi wanted to see the licenced revolver .32 bore of Akash, which he often keeps with him. When Akashdeep Bhandari put forth his revolver to show then Surjinder Singh enquired if the same was not loaded with bullets. Akash Bhandari told him that he had taken out the bullets from the same and told him that he can see himself. In the meanwhile as soon as Akashdeep Bhandari forwarded the revolver to show it to Surjinder while putting his fingers on the trigger, the trigger was pressed from the hand of Akashdeep and one bullet shot grazed the cheek of Surjinder.” In the present case, both the parties were close friends. CRM No. M 19823 of 2010 3 It is the admitted case of the present petitioners that it was a case of accident. Thus, the complainant is equally interested that FIR should be quashed. 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. 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 CRM No. M 19823 of 2010 4 matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainant as well as the injured have no objection if the said FIR is quashed. Taking into account the allegations, affidavit as well as the statement of the complainant and the injured, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the well settled above proposition of law. Accordingly, FIR No.595 dated 05.12.2001 under Sections 188, 328 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 14.08.2010 mohan