IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-4053 of 2011 Date of Decision:28.02.2011 Mayank Malik and another .... Petitiones Versus State of U.T. Chandigarh and others .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Sajjan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Anil Lambdhari, Advocate for U.T. Chandigarh. Mr. Mohinder Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. **** 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) The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved for quashing of FIR No.267 dated 20.10.2010 under Sections 308 and 34 IPC Police Station Sector 11, Chandigarh and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The FIR in question was got registered by respondent No.2., However, the matter has been compromised due to the intervention of the respectables of the area. Compromise deed (Annexure P-3) has also been placed on record in this regard. The parties are present in the Court through their respective counsel. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 has placed on record the affidavit of respondents No.2 authenticating the compromise. As per the affidavit, respondent No.2 has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. It is further stated that the said compromise was CRM M-4053 of 2011 -2- entered into with the intervention of the respectables of the area. Section 308 IPC reads as under: “ Attempt to commit culpable homicide.- Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.” No doubt Sections 308 IPC has been attributed to the petitioners but no offence indicating that any injury was inflicted has been added. Moreover, each case has to be dealt in the peculiar facts of the case. It is also relevant to mention here that it is a case of version and cross version. Petitioner No.1 has also got lodged an FIR No.361 dated 21.12.2010 under Sections 323/354/452/34 IPC Police Station Sector 11, Chandigarh. The same has also been quashed vide order of even date by this Court on the basis of compromise effected between the parties. In view of these facts, there is no impediment in accepting the compromise. 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 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 CRM M-4053 of 2011 -3- 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 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 v. 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.” Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana reported as 2003(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 888 while relying on the CRM M-4053 of 2011 -4- judgment titled as Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. (1998) 5 SCC 749 that this Court with reference to Bhajan Lal case observed that the guidelines laid therein as to where the court will exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code could not be inflexible or laying rigid formula to be followed by the court. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is well settled that these powers have no limits. Of course, where there is more power it becomes necessary of exercise utmost care and caution while invoking such powers. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. (1998) 1 SCC 692, it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appears in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and therefore no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceedings. While applying the test in the present case, there is no impediment in the way of the Court to accept the compromise and quash the proceedings as well as the FIR for peace and harmony which in turn shall help the parties to move on in life. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.267 dated 20.10.2010 under Sections 308 and 34 IPC Police Station Sector 11, CRM M-4053 of 2011 -5- Chandigarh and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the peculiar facts of the present case. 28.02.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE