CRM No. M 24211 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 24211 of 2010 Date of decision: 04.02.2011 Sanjiv Loomba ........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. J S Jaidka, Advocate for the petitioner Ms Neelam AAG, Punjab Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Complainant in person -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter 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. 123 dated 21.06.2010 under Section 24, of the Immigration Act, 1983, P S Model Town, Ludhiana City, which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the present petition, the matter has been compromised. The complainant is present in Court, whose identity has been CRM No. M 24211 of 2010 2 verified by the Investigating Officer. The complainant has also got recorded his statement in Court today, stating therein, that during the pendency of the petition, the matter has been compromised and he has no objection if the said FIR is 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 CRM No. M 24211 of 2010 3 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 said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed. Taking into account the allegations as well as statement of the complainant, 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 above said settled proposition of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 123 dated 21.06.2010 under Section 24, of the Immigration Act, 1983, P S Model Town, Ludhiana City and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 04.02.2011 mohan