IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.M-12221 of 2009
Date of Decision:- 18.11.2009
Mohammad Deen ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Punjab and another ....Respondent(s)
***
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
***
Present:- Mr.G.S.Bal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab,
for respondent No.1.
Ms.Simranjit Kaur, Advocate,
for the complainant.
***
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of FIR No.97
dated 30.9.2008 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 IPC registered at
Police Station Bhadson, District Patiala (Annexure P-1) and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the
compromise entered into between the parties dated 1.12.2008 (Annexure
P-4).
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the dispute in the
present petition arose due to an accident which had occurred on 22.09.2008
and now 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 further dispute between the parties due to existence of the
compromise dated 1.12.2008 (Annexure P-4). The complainant also does
not have any
Crl.Misc.No.M-12221 of 2009 -2-
objection to the quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings
arising therefrom.
Counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 on the basis of
the written statement filed by respondent No.2-complainant Parminder
Singh son of Amarjit Singh, states that a compromise has been entered into
between the parties and, therefore, the complainant does not want to press
the allegations against the petitioner and has no objection to the quashing of
the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Respondent No.2-complainant-Parminder Singh son of Amarjit
Singh is present in Court and has been identified by his counsel. He states
that the compromise deed dated 1.12.2008 (Annexure P-4) has indeed been
entered into between the parties. He states that as the matter having been
compromised, he does not want to press the allegations against the
petitioner and has no objection to the quashing of the FIR and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
In view of the above, the interest of justice would be duly
served with the quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings
arising therefrom as there is no dispute as on today. Since the compromise
has been entered into between the parties and the matter has been amicably
resolved leaving both the parties satisfied, there is every likelihood that the
complainant would not come up before the trial Court to support the
prosecution case, the chances of conviction of the petitioner are very bleak,
therefore, the interest of justice would require that the FIR and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom be quashed.
A Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh
Crl.Misc.No.M-12221 of 2009 -3-
& 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
have amicably settled the matter, which is otherwise in the interest of justice
Crl.Misc.No.M-12221 of 2009 -4-
and appears to have been effected to promote peace and harmony amongst
the parties, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned FIR
No.97 dated 30.9.2008 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 IPC registered
at Police Station Bhadson, District Patiala (Annexure P-1) and all other
consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
November 18, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE