IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-12221 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 18.11.2009 Mohammad Deen ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Punjab and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.G.S.Bal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Ms.Simranjit Kaur, Advocate, for the complainant. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of FIR No.97 dated 30.9.2008 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 IPC registered at Police Station Bhadson, District Patiala (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties dated 1.12.2008 (Annexure P-4). Counsel for the petitioner contends that the dispute in the present petition arose due to an accident which had occurred on 22.09.2008 and now with the passage of time and with the intervention of the respectables, compromise has been entered into between the parties. There does not exist any further dispute between the parties due to existence of the compromise dated 1.12.2008 (Annexure P-4). The complainant also does not have any Crl.Misc.No.M-12221 of 2009 -2- objection to the quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 on the basis of the written statement filed by respondent No.2-complainant Parminder Singh son of Amarjit Singh, states that a compromise has been entered into between the parties and, therefore, the complainant does not want to press the allegations against the petitioner and has no objection to the quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Respondent No.2-complainant-Parminder Singh son of Amarjit Singh is present in Court and has been identified by his counsel. He states that the compromise deed dated 1.12.2008 (Annexure P-4) has indeed been entered into between the parties. He states that as the matter having been compromised, he does not want to press the allegations against the petitioner and has no objection to the quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. In view of the above, the interest of justice would be duly served with the quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom as there is no dispute as on today. Since the compromise has been entered into between the parties and the matter has been amicably resolved leaving both the parties satisfied, there is every likelihood that the complainant would not come up before the trial Court to support the prosecution case, the chances of conviction of the petitioner are very bleak, therefore, the interest of justice would require that the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom be quashed. A Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh Crl.Misc.No.M-12221 of 2009 -3- & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, while discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non-compoundable offence(s), has held as under:- “28. 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 in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation. 29. 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.” Therefore, in view of the discussion above, since the parties have amicably settled the matter, which is otherwise in the interest of justice Crl.Misc.No.M-12221 of 2009 -4- and appears to have been effected to promote peace and harmony amongst the parties, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned FIR No.97 dated 30.9.2008 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 IPC registered at Police Station Bhadson, District Patiala (Annexure P-1) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. November 18, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE