Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajnish Kumari And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 24 January, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. M. No.M-31585 of 2010
Date of Decision:24.1.2011
Rajnish Kumari and others
.... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.... Respondents
And
Crl. M. No.M-32074 of 2010
Date of Decision:24.1.2011
Rakesh Kumar @ Roopi and others
.... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.... Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present: Mr. R.D. Sharma, Advocate.
Mrs. Gurveen H. Singh, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
Mr. Gaurav Pathak, Advocate for
Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate.
****
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.
The instant petitions have been filed for quashing of FIR No.210 dated 20.12.2001 registered under Sections 323,324,34 IPC (Section 326 IPC added subsequently) at Police Station Division No.1, Pathankot, District Gurdaspur as well as cross version under Sections 452,380 IPC given in the aforesaid FIR and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.
The FIR in question mentioned in Crl. M No.31585 of 2010 was got registered by respondent No.2-Rakesh Kumar @ Roopi whereas cross case mentioned in Crl. M. No.32074-M of 2010 was got registered by respondent No.2-Smt. Rajnish Kumari @ Veena.
However, the matter has since been compromised.
Crl. M. No.M-31585 of 2010 -2-Compromise deeds (Annexures P-2 and P-4) have also been placed on record in both the petitions respectively.
Vide orders dated 27.10.2010 and 10.11.2010, notice of motion was issued in both the petitions and the trial Court was directed to send the report with regard to the validity or otherwise of the compromise, after recording the statements of all the concerned parties before the next date of hearing.
In pursuance to the same, reports of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pathankot, have been received in both the petitions. As per the said report, the statements of the parties have been recorded. It is further submitted that as per their statements, the concerned Court has its view that the compromise is genuine and has been validly entered into between the parties with a view to end the litigation itself regarding the genuineness of the compromise and has also opined 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 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 Crl. M. No.M-31585 of 2010 -3- 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."
In view of the settled position of law and in the facts of the present case, it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to accept the compromise and exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR in the interest of justice to promote peace and harmony. The compromise is entered into without any pressure. The parties are co-villagers.
Accordingly, the instant petitions are allowed and FIR No.210 dated 20.12.2001 registered under Sections 323,324,34 IPC (Section 326 IPC added subsequently) at Police Station Division No.1, Pathankot, District Gurdaspur as well as cross version under Sections 452,380 IPC given in the aforesaid FIR and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties are hereby quashed in the interest of justice.
A photo copy of this order be placed on the connected case.
24.1.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE