CRM No. M 16221 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 16221 of 2010 Date of decision: 05.04.2011 Baldeep Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Ashok Goel, Advocate for for the petitioner Mr. Amit Rana, DAG, Haryana for the respondent - State Mr. Ramanjeet Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2 - complainant -.- 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. 63 dated 12.04.2001 under Sections 420 IPC, Police Station Jakhal, District Fatehabad, which was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioner on the basis of the compromise dated 22.05.2010 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same is placed on record as Annexure P-2. CRM No. M 16221 of 2010 2 It is stated by learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that complainant – Gurbrendar Singh is present in Court today and has also filed his affidavit. The same is taken on record. As per the affidavit, the matter has been compromised and the complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed. In the present case, some mis-understanding between the parties led to filing of the FIR. Now, the matter has been amicably resolved and complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed. It is pointed out by the learned State Counsel that the petitioner is a proclaimed offender. The matter has been compromised. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney vs. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others reported as (1980) 1 SCC 63, held that:- “29. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320 (9) of the Cr.P.C. or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.” While relying upon the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, this Court in the case of Jobanjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and others (Crl. M No. 10033 of 2009, decided on 29.07.2009) quashed the proceedings declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender by observing as under:- “Keeping in view the enunciation of law as referred to above and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case, once the matter has been compromised between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the prosecution. Accordingly, order dated 23.12.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar CRM No. M 16221 of 2010 3 (Annexure P-3) declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender, FIR No. 38 dated 05.07.2000, registered at Police Station Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar, under Sections 323, 325, 341, 148, 149 IPOC (Annexure P1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner. Similar view by was also held by this Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab and another (CRM M 1238 of 2007, decided on 29.01.2007). 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 CRM No. M 16221 of 2010 4 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 dispute is purely personal in nature and the 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, compromise deed dated 22.05.2010 as well as affidavit 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 settled proposition of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 63 dated 12.04.2001 under Sections 420 IPC, Police Station Jakhal, District Fatehabad (Annexure P1) and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed qua the present petitioners. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 05.04.2011 mohan