Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bimal Kumar And Others vs State Haryana And Another on 17 May, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM M-7950 of 2011
Date of Decision:17.5.2011
Bimal Kumar and others .... Petitioners
Versus
State Haryana and another .... Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present: Mr. Lalit K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Sidharth Sarup, D.A.G. Haryana.
****
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.508 dated 6.11.2010 under Sections 148/149/452/427/506 IPC Police Station Ambala Cantt., Ambala 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 already been placed on record to this effect.
Vide order dated 4.4..2011, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court on 8.4.2011 and trial Court was directed to record the statements of the parties and send the report with respect to the genuineness of the compromise.
In pursuance to the same, report of the Judicial CRM M-7950 of 2011 -2- Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala, has been received. As per the said report, the statements of the parties have been recorded. It is further submitted that the Court is satisfied that the parties have reached upon a compromise voluntarily.
Thus, there is no doubt that 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 thewide 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-7950 of 2011 -3-
" 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.508 dated 6.11.2010 under Sections 148/149/452/427/506 IPC Police Station Ambala Cantt., Ambala and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
17.5.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE