Crl. Misc.No.M 29153 of 2010 # 1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAT AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc.No.M 29153 of 2010 Date of Decision:-27.10.2010 Gurnam Singh & Ors. ......Petitioners. Versus State of Punjab & Ors. ......Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. R.S. Thakur, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab. *** JASWANT SINGH, J. Prayer is under section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of cross version under Sections 324, 323, 452, 148, 149 Indian Penal Code in fIr No.120 dated 10.09.2003 registered with Police Station Dina Nagar, registered at the instance of respondent no.2 and also complaint no.58 dated 24.5.2004 (P3) in respect of the occurrence dated 7.9.2003 on the basis of compromise. In the above stated cross version, complainant Gurmej Singh had levelled allegations against the petitioners that on 07.09.2003 Gurnam Singh @ Gamma and Sukhwinder Singh both sons of the complainant returned from Chhinj Mela and were upset. On asking by the complainant Crl. Misc.No.M 29153 of 2010 # 2# they told him that petitioner Ram Singh met them in the way and threatened them to teach a lesson. On hearing this complainant went to get lock the gate of his house but in the meanwhile all the petitioners armed with deadly weapons like Kirpans, Dang, Gandasis, Datars entered the house of the complainant and raised lalkaras and also inflicted injuries on the persons of the complainant as well as his sons. While issuing notice of motion parties were directed to appear before the learned Illaqa Magistrate for getting their statements recorded in terms of the compromise and submit its report regarding the genuineness of the compromise. Report (Mark-A) in the shape of letter dated 21.10.2010 of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur has been received wherein it is stated that the parties appeared before that court and suffered statements recorded separately before that court. Complainant in his statement has stated that he has compromised the matter with the accused persons-petitioners and have no objection if the aforesaid FIR and all consequential proceedings are quashed against them. From the report submitted 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 ASI Kidar Singh submits that prosecution evidence is going on in the present case and is unable to raise any serious objection in view of the aforesaid compromise wherein the parties have deposed on the basis of the compromise A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. Crl. Misc.No.M 29153 of 2010 # 3# State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held 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.” 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 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 Crl. Misc.No.M 29153 of 2010 # 4# account the fact 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 cross version under Sections 324, 323, 452, 148, 149 Indian Penal Code in FIR No.120 dated 10.09.2003 registered with Police Station Dina Nagar, registered at the instance of respondent no.2 and also complaint no.58 dated 24.5.2004 (P3) in respect of the occurrence dated 7.9.2003 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed against all the petitioners. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE 27th October, 2010 Vinay