IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-25122 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:7.3.2011 Bhupinder Singh .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. J.B.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Gurveen H. Singh, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Mr. Ruminder Jit Singh, Advocate for the private respondents. **** 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) Crl. M. No.58316 of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. Crl. M. No.25122-M of 2009 The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.59 dated 18.4.2009 under Sections 279/304- A/337/338/427 IPC Police Station Mahilpur District Hoshiarpur and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The FIR in question was got registered by respondent No.2. However, the matter has been compromised due to the intervention of the respectables of the area. Compromise deed (Annexure P-2) has also been placed on record in this regard. Vide order dated 12.01.2010, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court and move an application for recording their CRM M-25122 of 2009 (O&M) -2- statements before it. The trial Court was further directed to record a finding of all the legal heirs of the deceased as to whether the compromise is genuine or not and submit its report before this Court. In pursuance to the same, report of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur, has been received. It is submitted in the said report as under: “ On 21.1.2011, complainant Gulshan Bavra appeared and got recorded his statement to the effect that he has effected compromise with accused Bhupinder Singh and in this regard, he furnished his affidavit Ex.A1 without any pressure. Similarly, Bimla Devi, mother of deceased Randhir Kumar also appeared and got recorded her statement to the effect that she has received Rs.1,10,000/- for the death of her son Randhir Kumar from accused Bhupinder Singh. Now, she has no grudge against accused and nothing is due against him. Similar statement was also made by Mamta Devi widow of deceased Randhir Kumar. Kailash Rani, mother of deceased Tarlochan Singh appeared and got recorded her statement to the effect that she has received a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- for the death of her son Tarlochan Singh from accused Bhupinder Singh. Now, she has no grudge against accused and nothing is due against him. Similar statement was also made by Kashmir Kaur, widow of deceased Tarlochan Singh and witness Jaswinder Kumar. Accused Bhupinder Singh also appeared in the Court and got recorded his statement to the effect that he has effected CRM M-25122 of 2009 (O&M) -3- compromise with complainant Gulshan Bavra and eye witness Jaswinder Kumar. He has paid Rs.1,10,000/- each to the legal heirs of deceased Randhir Kumar and Tarlochan Singh, Now, nothing is due towards him. In these circumstances, it seems that genuine compromise has been effected between the parties.” Thus, there is no doubt that the the matter has been compromised. 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.” In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008 (4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under:- CRM M-25122 of 2009 (O&M) -4- “ 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.” Taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties and the report received from the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.59 dated 18.4.2009 under Sections 279/304-A/337/338/427 IPC Police Station Mahilpur District Hoshiarpur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 7.3.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE