Crl. Misc. No.M-2295 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-2295 of 2011 Date of Decision: 25.01.2011 Randhir Singh Virk ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Arun Takhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. Gunjan Rishi, Advocate for respondent No.2/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) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No.374 dated 19.10.2010 under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 120-B IPC,Police Station Tripri Town District Patiala registered against the present petitioner on the basis of compromise dated 15.12.2010 having been arrived at between the parties and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same qua the petitioner. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. A separate statement of the complainant- Rameshwar Dass has also been got recorded in the Court to the same effect. It would be relevant to note the facts of the present case. As Crl. Misc. No.M-2295 of 2011 2 per the allegations in the FIR, the present petitioner and two others received ` 6,50,000/- from the complainant with respect to the agreement to sell and after the receipt of the money by the them, the registries of the showroom in the name of the complainant were not executed and the accused backed out from the conditions of agreement. Now, compromise has been arrived at between the complainant and the present petitioner-Randhir Singh Virk. As per the compromise (P-2) and the statement made before this Court, the complainant has no objection, if the FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising out the same are quashed qua the present petitioner only. He further states that he wants to pursue the proceedings qua Surinder Kumar and Chander Dev Lal, whose names are mentioned in the FIR. He further stated in his statement that the total amount to be received by him was ` 6,50,000/- and out of the same, an amount of ` 3,25,000/- as principal amount and ` 1,00,000/- as interest fell in the share of the present petitioner alone has been received. He had duly received an amount of ` 4,25,000/- from the present petitioner vide Demand Draft No.195844 dated 11.12.2010. An affidavit was also executed affirming the factum of compromise and the same is placed on record. This Court in the case of Parambir Singh Gill vs. Malkiat Kaur reported as 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 256 quashed the proceedings against one of the accused on the basis of compromise, whereas proceedings against the other co-accused were allowed to continue. The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. 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, Crl. Misc. No.M-2295 of 2011 3 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.” In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. 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.” In the present case, the dispute is purely personal in nature and the compromise has been arrived at between the petitioner and the complainant. The said compromise has been arrived at between the two without any pressure. The complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed qua the present petitioner. Taking into account the allegations as well as the statement of Crl. Misc. No.M-2295 of 2011 4 the complainant and the matter being totally personal in nature, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR at least qua the petitioner. Keeping in mind the decisions rendered by this Court in the cases of Parambir Singh Gill (supra), Kulwinder Singh (supra), as well as, the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot (supra) as also the facts of the present case, the compromise deserves to be accepted. Thus, in the interest of justice FIR No. 374 dated 19.10.2010 under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Tripri Town District Patiala and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same qua the present petitioner only are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the aforesaid FIR and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed qua the petitioner whereas the proceedings against other accused shall continue. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 25.01.2011 JUDGE gurpreet