CRM No. M 5713 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 5713 of 2010 Date of decision: 26.03.2010 Gurtej Singh ........ petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for for the petitioner Mr. Sanjeev Sura, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the respondent - State Mr. Amarjeet Singh, 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. 94 dated 03.07.2008 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Pinjore, District Panchkula registered against the present petitioner on the basis of the compromise dated 03.06.2009 having been arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. A separate statement of complainant - Vikram has also been got recorded in the Court to the same CRM No. M 5713 of 2010 2 effect. It would be relevant to note the facts of the present case. As per the allegations in the FIR, the complainant had applied for loan in the City Finance and the documents were handed over to the representatives of the Company. Subsequently, the complainant refused to take the loan. Meanwhile, the said documents were misused by the accused persons Anup Thakur and Mohan Thakur. Now, the compromise has been arrived at between the complainant and present petitioner - Gurtej Singh. The present petitioner is not even named in the FIR. As per the compromise (P-2) and the statement made before this Court, the complainant has no objection if the FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are quashed qua the present petitioner only. This Court in the case of Parambir Singh Gill v. Malkiat Kaur reported as 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 256 quashed the proceedings against one of the accused on the basis of compromise, whereas proceedings against the other co-accused were allowed to continue. 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 CRM No. M 5713 of 2010 3 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 petitioner and complainant. The said compromise has been arrived at between the two without any pressure. The complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed qua the present petitioner. Taking into account the allegations 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 at least qua the petitioner. Keeping in mind the decisions rendered by this Court in the CRM No. M 5713 of 2010 4 cases of Parambir Singh Gill, Kulwinder Singh as well as the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot (supra) as also the facts of the present case, the compromise deserves to be accepted. Thus, it would be in the interest of justice to quash FIR No. 94 dated 03.07.2008 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Pinjore, District Panchkula as well as further proceedings arising out of the same for keeping peace, harmony as well as to reduce friction in the society qua the petitioner only. Accordingly, the aforesaid FIR and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed qua the petitioner whereas the proceedings against other accused shall continue. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 26.03.2010 mohan