IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.M-28657 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision:- 23.11.2009
Ajaib Singh and others ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s)
***
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
***
Present:- Mr.D.S.Sidhu, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab.
Mr.L.S.Sidhu, Advocate,
for respondents No.2 and 3.
***
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of cross-version
case in FIR No.175 dated 29.5.2005 under Sections 324/323/34 IPC and
Section 325 was added later on, registered on the statement of respondent
No.-2 Wariam Singh at Police Station Sadar Jalalabad, District Ferozepur
(Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the
basis of the compromise entered into between the parties dated 11.9.2009
(Annexure P-3).
Counsel for the petitioners, on the basis of the compromise
deed dated 11.9.2009 (Annexure P-3) prays for quashing of the cross-
version case in FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. He
contends that with the passage of time and with the intervention of the
respectables, compromise has been entered into between the parties. There
does not exist any dispute between the parties due to existence of the
Crl.Misc.No.M-28657 of 2009 (O&M) -2-
compromise deed dated 11.9.2009 (Annexure P-3). The complainants
also does not have any objection to the quashing of the cross-version
case in FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Reply on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 has been filed in
Court today and is taken on record. In the said reply, factum of compromise
has been admitted. On the basis of the said reply, counsel for the
complainant-respondents No.2 and 3 states that respondents No.2 and 3 do
not have any objection to the quashing of the cross-version case in FIR and
all consequential proceeding arising therefrom in the light of the
compromise and they do not want to press the allegations against the
petitioners.
Wariam Singh son of Jag Singh, Sobha Singh son of Jag Singh
are present in Court and have been identified by their counsel. They state
that a compromise dated 11.9.2009 has indeed been entered into between
the parties, copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. On
the basis of the said compromise, they do not want to pursue the
allegations which have been levelled against the petitioners in the cross-
version case in FIR and have no objection to the quashing of the cross-
version case in FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
In the light of the fact that the matter having been amicably
resolved and the compromise having been entered into between the parties
who are stated to be closely related with each other (real brothers), interest
of justice would be duly served with the quashing of the cross-version
case in FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom as there is
no dispute as on today.
Crl.Misc.No.M-28657 of 2009 (O&M) -3-
A Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh
& Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, while
discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise,
in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non-compoundable
offence(s), has held as under:-
“28. 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 in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant
matters, commercial transactions and other such matters
can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its
powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of
a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is
limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid
rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in
the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict
eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up
during the course of a litigation.
29. 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.”
Therefore, in view of the discussion above, since the parties
Crl.Misc.No.M-28657 of 2009 (O&M) -4-
have amicably settled the matter, which is otherwise in the interest of justice
and appears to have been effected to promote peace and harmony amongst
the parties, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned cross-
version in FIR No.175 dated 29.5.2005 under Sections 324/323/34 IPC and
Section 325 which was added later on, registered on the statement of
respondent No.2 Wariam Singh at Police Station Sadar Jalalabad, District
Ferozepur (Annexure P-1) and all other consequential proceedings arising
therefrom are hereby quashed.
November 23, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE