Punjab-Haryana High Court
Diwan Chand Singla vs State Of Punjab And Another on 2 November, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM M-28841 of 2010
Date of Decision:2.11.2010
Diwan Chand Singla
.... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.... Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present: Mr. Kuldeep Sanwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, D.A.G. Punjab.
Mr. Varun Baanth, Advocate for respondent No.2.
****
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.246 dated 10.9.2003 under Sections 406/498-A IPC Police Station Civil Lines Patiala and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.
The FIR in question is a result of matrimonial dispute. However, the matter has been compromised. Compromise deed (Annexure P-2) has been placed on record.
The parties are present in person through their respective counsel.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 has placed on record the reply by way affidavit of respondent No.2 admitting the factum of compromise. As per the affidavit, respondent No.2 has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.
The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh CRM M-28841 of 2010 -2- 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-28841 of 2010 -3-
Taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties, compromise (Annexure P-2) and the reply by way of affidavit of respondent No.2 stating that she 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.246 dated 10.9.2003 under Sections 406/498-A IPC Police Station Civil Lines Patiala and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
2.11.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE