IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-2193 of 2011 Date of Decision:4.4.2011 Harbans Kaur .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Brar, A.A.G. Punjab. **** 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) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.218 dated 12.8.2007 under Sections 454/380/447/427/506/148/149 IPC Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar 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-4) has also been placed on record in this regard. Vide order dated 16.3.2011, following order was passed: “Respondent No.2 is stated to have expired. The death certificate by the name of Monika has been handed over to this Court while saying that respondent No.2 is also known by the name of Monika. The said certificate is returned CRM M-2193 of 2011 -2- back. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that since respondent No.2 has died, her father, who is stated to be the only legal heir, may be impleaded as party. In view of the oral request made by learned counsel for the petitioner, Kulwant Rai son of Baisakhi Ram resident of village Chheharat Sahib, Tehsil and District, Amritsar, presently r/o Krishna Mandir, B/521 Quarter Naraingarh, Amritsar is impleaded as party respondent No.3 subject to all just exceptions. Registry is directed to make necessary correction in the memo of parties. Let notice be issued to newly impleaded respondent No.3 for 30.3.2011. Dasti as well. Meanwhile, the State may also verify whether respondent No.2 and Monika whose death certificate was shown is one and the same person or not.” In pursuance to the above reproduced order, learned State counsel has placed on record the reply by way of affidavit of Harjinder Singh SI/SHO PS Phillaur submitting therein that respondent No.2 and Monika is one and the same person. Respondent No.3, who is father and the only legal heir of respondent No.2, is present in the Court. He placed on record his affidavit admitting the factum of compromise. As per the said affidavit, he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh CRM M-2193 of 2011 -3- 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:- “ 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.” CRM M-2193 of 2011 -4- Taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties and the affidavit of respondent No.3, who is the only legal heir of respondent No.2, stating that he has no objection if the FIR is quashed, 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.218 dated 12.8.2007 under Sections 454/380/447/427/506/148/149 IPC Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 4.4.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE