Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)
CRM M No. 34587 of 2011 is a version case and CRM M 35256 of 2011 is cross version case, registered in FIR No. 101 dated 11.06.2011 under Section 379-B IPC, P S Chheharta, Amritsar City, District Amritsar. Prayer in both these petitions is for quashing of the said FIR as well as cross version on the basis of compromise arrive at between the parties.
The said FIR was got registered on the statement of Kawaldeep Singh (respondent No. 2 in CRM M 34587 of 2011), whereas, a cross version case was also registered on the statement of Kamal Kumar (respondent No. 2 in CRM M 35256 of 2011) against Kawaldeep Singh, Aman Chadha and Gurdeep Singh in the said FIR. Both the parties are present in Court today along with their counsel. Kawaldeep Singh, who is author of the said FIR as well as Kamal Kumar, cross version, have filed their respective affidavits in Court today, stating therein, that the matter has been amicably settled between them and they do not want to pursue the litigation any more and have no objection if the said FIR as well as the cross version is quashed.
The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab-2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has observed as under:-
“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 reduced 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 exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.”
The Apex Court in the case of ‘Madan Mohan Abbot v. State Of Punjab.’ reported as (2008) 4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:-
“6. We need to emphasize 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.”
The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainant as well as the cross version has no objection if the said FIR and cross version is quashed.
Taking into account the allegations, compromise as well as affidavit of the complainant, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR as well as cross version and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the above said settled proposition of law.
Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed and FIR No. 101 dated 11.06.2011 under Section 379-B IPC, P S Chheharta, Amritsar City, District Amritsar as well as cross version in the said FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.
Allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Copy of this order be placed on the connected file.