CRM No. M 34975 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 34975 of 2010 Date of decision: 08.12.2010 Haneet Inder Singh Jakhar .......Petitioner Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ram Lal Verma, Advocate for respondent No. 1 Mr. Arun Pratap Atma Ram, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 6 -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 397 dated 27.09.2010 under Section 279, 337, 304-A of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh as the parties have settled the matter. Facts of the case are that on 27.09.2010, an FIR No. 397 of 2010 dated 27.09.2010 was got registered at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh under Sections 279, 337, 304A against the present petitioner. In the present case, the matter has been compromised. Even otherwise, it is evident from the FIR, itself, that the present petitioner got CRM No. M 34975 of 2010 2 down from the vehicle in question and took the injured in the same vehicle to Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh. Thereafter, the Doctor at Hopistal Sector 32, Chandigarh advised that the injured should be taken to the PGI. Accordingly, the present petitioner even took the injured to PGI. The petitioner duly disclosed his name and address to complainant-Mukhtiar Parshad who accompanied the injured. Now, with the intervention of the elders and friends, the misunderstanding between the parties stand removed and the matter has been amicably settled. It is also admitted in the FIR that the said accident occurred when the alleged deceased was crossing the road. Thus, in the facts of the present case, the question as to whether the said accident was occurred on account of negligence on the part of the petitioner or not is highly doubtful. Moreover, the petitioner who was the driver of the vehicle immediate took the injured to the Hospital in Sector 32, Chandigarh and therafter, on reference, he took the injured to PGI. In view of the facts of the present case as well as taking into account the conduct of the petitioner, a compromise entered between the parties can be accepted. Vide CRM 63785 of 2010, affidavits of Mukhtiar Parshad- complainant, Jai Mala Kumari-daughter, Jamini Devi-mother,Satinder Parshad-brother and Kanta Devi-wife of deceased Jatinder Parshad have been placed on record. As per the said affidavits, Jatinder Parshad was a seasonal worker with no constant or regular source of income. The respondents in their respective affidavits have stated that they do not wish to pursue the CRM No. M 34975 of 2010 3 case. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 6 states that in fact, respondents No. 2 to 6 belong to Bihar and therefore, they are only too keen to settle the matter and do not wish to take any action against the present petitioner or to pursue the FIR in the facts of the present case. 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 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 CRM No. M 34975 of 2010 4 they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized 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 the allegations, facts of the present case as well as affidavits of respondents No. 2 to 6, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in the above settled proposition of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.397 dated 27.09.2010 under Section 279, 337, 304-A of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 08.12.2010 mohan