Crl. Misc. No.M-34852 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-34852 of 2009 Date of Decision: 17.03.2010 Snehpal Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. N.S. Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. R.K. Mittal, 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.299 dated 06.09.2009 under Sections 323, 324, 379, 148, 149, 511 and added later on Sections 326 and 364 IPC dated 15.09.2009 as a cross case version lodged on the statement of respondent No.3 in FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. Crl. Misc. No.M-34852 of 2009 2 The FIR was registered against the present petitioners by respondent No.2-Rahul Dutta. Thereafter, on the statement of Sarabjit Singh, respondent No.3, a cross version case was entered against respondent-Rahul Dutta and others. The said cross version in DDR No.34 dated 15.09.2009 is also placed on record as P-2. Thereafter, with the intervention of the respectables and relatives, the matter has since been compromised among the parties. Both the parties have settled their grievances among each other. Vide order dated 16.02.2010, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court on 25.02.2010 and the trial Court was directed to record their statements and submit a report whether the compromise is genuine or not. In pursuance to the said order, the parties appeared before the trial Court and after recording their statements, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, has submitted the report, stating therein that the statements have been recorded and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that they have arrived at a compromise with the intervention of respectables. They are all students and as per the statements recorded, the compromise is in the interest of both the parties as they have cut down the differences and have resolved to study together in a healthy environment. The compromise is genuine. The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. 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 Crl. Misc. No.M-34852 of 2009 3 to be accepted. It is further held 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.” In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. 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.” In view of the facts of the present case and taking into account that the parties are students, there is no impediment in the way of the Court to quash the said FIR. In view of the settled position of law, it would be just and proper to quash the FIR for peace, harmony and thus allow the parties to move on in life. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.299 dated 06.09.2009 under Sections 323, 324, 379, 148, 149, 511 and added Crl. Misc. No.M-34852 of 2009 4 later on Sections 326 and 364 IPC dated 15.09.2009 as a cross case version lodged on the statement of respondent No.3 in FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 17.03.2010 JUDGE gurpreet