CRM No. M 20556 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 20556 of 2010 Date of decision: 14.08.2010 Gurmit Singh and others ........ petitioners Versus State of Punjab and other .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr.Rajinder Kumar Singla, Advocate for for the petitioners Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State Mr. Rakesh Sharma, 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 is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.101 dated 16.08.2009 under Section 447, 506, 511, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sudhar, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 12.07.2010 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. CRM No. M 20556 of 2010 2 A separate statement of the complainant to the same effect is also got recorded in the Court. Complainant-Harjit Singh son of Amar Singh has also filed his reply in the form of affidavit stating therein that he has no objection if the F.I.R is quashed. The same is taken on record. In his reply, the complainant has submitted that after filing of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners in Court, the Panchayat and respectables have got effected the compromise and all disputes stand settled. The complainant as well as the petitioners are the residents of same village. 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 CRM No. M 20556 of 2010 3 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. The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The parties are residents of the same village. The complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed. Taking into account the allegations, affidavit as well as the statement of the complainant and the matter being totally personal in nature, 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 well settled above proposition of law. Accordingly, FIR No.101 dated 16.08.2009 under Section 447, 506, 511, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sudhar, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 14.08.2010 mohan