CRM M 34874 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- Date of decision: 19.04.2011 1. CRM M 34874 of 2010 Chamkaur Singh and others ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent (s) 2. CRM M 34761 of 201 0 Kulwant Singh and others ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent (s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Aftab Singh Khara , Advocate for the petitioners (CRM M 34874 of 2010) Mr. J S Brar, DAG, Punjab Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate for respondent No. 2 – complainant (CRM M 34874 of 2010) Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate for the petitioners (CRM M 34761 of 2010) Mr. Aftab Singh Khara , Advocate for the complainant/respondent (CRM M 34761 of 2010) -.- 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? CRM M 34874 of 2010 2 Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) Both the aforesaid petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the same arise out of the same FIR and between the same parties. In CRM M 34874 of 2010, the petitioners have sought for quashing of the FIR No. 291 dated 21.06.2007 under Sections 447, 323, 325, 308, 506, 34 IPC, P S Sadar Patiala District Patiala which was got lodged by Kulwant Singh (respondent No. 2) against the petitioners, whereas, in CRM M 34761 of 2010, the petitioners have sought for quashing of cross version registered in the said FIR under Sections 447, 323, 326, 148, 149, 506 IPC on the statement of Gurinder Singh (respondent No. 2). Learned counsel for the parties state that the matter has been compromised between the parties as per compromise deed dated 15.11.2010 and they have no objection if the version as well as cross version are quashed. To this effect, affidavits of the complainant as well as cross versioner are also annexed with the petitions. 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 CRM M 34874 of 2010 3 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 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 said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The aggrieved parties have no objection if the said FIR as well as cross version is quashed. Taking into account the allegations as well as compromise deed dated 15.11.2010, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR, cross version and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the above said settled proposition of law. Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed and FIR No. 291 dated 21.06.2007 under Sections 447, 323, 325, 308, 506, 34 IPC, P S Sadar CRM M 34874 of 2010 4 Patiala District Patiala as well as the cross version registered in the said FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. Photocopy of the order be placed on the connected file. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 19.04.2011 mohan