IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. R. No.3026 of 2010 Date of Decision:9.3.2010 Baldev Singh .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. J.S. Thind, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Brar, A.A.G. Punjab. Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for the complainant. **** 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 revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 21.10.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Patiala, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, dated 11.5.2010 whereby the petitioners were convicted and sentenced. The complainant has since died. During the pendency of the present revision petition, a compromise has been effected between the petitioner and the legal heirs of the complainant i.e. wife, mother and father. The compromise deed dated 22.3.2010 has been placed on record in this regard. The parties are present in the Court alongwith their respective counsel. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has already placed on record the affidavits of all the legal heirs of the complainant i.e. wife, mother and father, admitting the factum of compromise. As per the said affidavits, the said compromise was entered into without without any pressure and out of their own sweet will. They have no objection if the petitioner is acquitted of the charge. The Apex Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2008(2) RCR (Criminl) 910 while quashing the FIR and all proceedings arising out of the same held that the Crl. R. No.3026 of 2010 -2- continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. In that case also the petitioners were convicted under Section 498-A IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment of 18 months. An appeal was filed against the conviction order and during the pendency of the appeal, the parties had settled their differences. However, they filed petition before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint as well as conviction order on account of the compromise. The High Court dismissed the same. Aggrieved, they challenged the same before the Apex Court. The Apex Court accepted the compromise and quashed the FIR and all the proceedings arising out of the same, as well as order of conviction. This Court in the case of Sukhwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjan and another, 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 991 who relying upon the judgment of Khursheed and another v. State of U.P. And another, 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 495 allowed the petitioners to compound the offence under Section 452 IPC during the pendency of the appeal. 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 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.” Accordingly, in view of the compromise having been arrived at between the parties and the affidavits of all the legal heirs of the Crl. R. No.3026 of 2010 -3- complainant, the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court as well as judgment and order dated 11.5.2010 passed by it and Appellate Court's judgment dated 21.10.2010 confirming the sentence are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the aforesaid charge. The petitioner is ordered to be released forthwith. The present petition is allowed as above. 9.3.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE