IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-26293 of 2010 Date of Decision:17.02.2011 Amarjit Singh and others .... Petitiones Versus State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Gurveen H. Singh, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Mr. Ranjodh Singh, Advocate for respondents N.2 to 5. **** 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.155 dated 1.6.2008 under Sections 307/336/148/149 IPC and Section 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act Police Station Bagaha Purana, District Moga and DDR No.32 dated 1.6.2008 under Sections 447/427/511 IPC in the said FIR and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The FIR in question was got registered by one Jaswinder Singh, who is husband and father of respondents No.2 to 5 against the petitioners on the allegation that the petitioners had tried to kill him. The said Jaswinder Singh-complainant has since expired. However, the matter is stated to have been compromised between the petitioners and the legal representatives of deceased-Jaswinder Singh i.e. respondents No.2 to 5. Compromise deed has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. Accordingly, notice of motion was issued. CRM M-26293 of 2010 -2- Upon notice, the parties are present in the Court through their respective counsel. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 to 5 has placed on record the affidavits of respondents No.2 to 5 authenticating the compromise. As per the affidavit, respondents No.2 to 5 have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. It is further stated that the said compromise was entered into with the intervention of the respectable of the area. No doubt Sections 307 IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act have been attributed to the petitioners but it is a case of no injury. Normally, this Court would have had reservation while quashing FIR under Section 307 IPC. Nobody was injured in the incident. If there was any intention to kill, the shot should have hit someone. Surprisingly, no one was even injured. Obviously, the intention, if at all, was to scare them. Each case has to be dealt in the peculiar facts of the case. 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 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 CRM M-26293 of 2010 -3- 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 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 CRM M-26293 of 2010 -4- 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.155 dated 1.6.2008 under Sections 307/336/148/149 IPC and Section 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act Police Station Bagaha Purana, District Moga and DDR No.32 dated 1.6.2008 under Sections 447/427/511 IPC in the said FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the peculiar facts of the present case. 17.02.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE