CRM No. M 21742 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 21742 of 2009 Date of decision: 17.12.2009 Mandeep Singh ........ petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K S Pannu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent- State Mr. Balbir Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2 -.- 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. 112 dated 01.09.2004 under Section 406 IPC at Police Station Garh Shankar, District Hoshiarpur on the basis of the compromise having been arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. A separate statements of the complainant as well as of the petitioner have also been recorded in the Court to the same effect. The CRM No. M 21742 of 2009 2 petitioner and respondent No. 2 have also filed their respective affidavits stating that the FIR and proceedings arising out of the matter pursuance of the statement of respondent No. 2 be quashed. It would be relevant to note the facts of the present case. Petitioner – Mandeep Singh had got registered FIR No. 112 dated 01.09.2004 under Section 406 IPC at Police Station Garh Shankar, District Hoshiarpur against respondent No. 2- Surjit Kaur. As per the allegation in the FIR, Surjit Kaur, who is owner of Maruti Car 1997 Model baring registration No. PB 10X 5833 and she disclosed her desire to sell the aforesaid Car and sold the same for Rs.70,000/-, which was paid. But no document was got executed from her due to faith. After some days, she disclosed her desire to purchase en enfield motor cycle and asked complainant-Mandeep Singh for help and accordingly paid Rs.65,000/-. After paying the amount, she took the motor cycle, but subsequently returned the same to Mandeep Singh. Thereafter, she obtained his signatures on some blank papers by misleading him and the said documents signed by him were used to show her ownership of the said vehicle. However, later on, during investigation a statement was made by Surjit Kaur-respondent No. 2 and on the basis of her statement, it was found that rather it was Mandeep Singh-author of the FIR, who had taken motor cycle and car as well as Rs.2,00,000/- from Surjit Kaur. Accordingly, Challan was filed against the present petitioner and Surjit Kaur was found innocent. The aforesaid matter has since been compromised between the parties. Separate affidavits of both the parties have also been filed in Court today. In his affidavit, Mandeep Singh stated that he has no objection if the CRM No. M 21742 of 2009 3 aforesaid FIR is quashed. Similarly, in her affidavit Surjit Kaur stated that she has no if the proceedings arising in the matter in pursuance of her statement qua the petitioner are quashed. 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 is a case which is purely personal in nature and the compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. In view of the compromise, chances of conviction either of the petitioner or the complainant are nil. It would be a futile exercise to allow the proceedings to continue. Keeping in mind the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot (supra), affidavits of both the parties as also the facts of the present case, the compromise deserves to be CRM No. M 21742 of 2009 4 accepted. Thus, it would be in the interest of justice to quash FIR No. 112 dated 01.09.2004 under Section 406 IPC at Police Station Garh Shankar, District Hoshiarpur as well as further proceedings arising out of the same and the challan filed against the present petitioner in pursuance to the statement of Surjit Kaur for promoting peace and harmony. Accordingly, the aforesaid FIR and further proceedings arising out of the same qua the petitioner in pursuance to the statement recorded by Surjit Kaur are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge December 17, 2009 mohan