Ashok Aggarwal vs State of Punjab and others

Petitioner - Ashok Aggarwal has brought the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 79 dated 18.6.2013, for

offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, registered at Police Station ''E'' Division, Amritsar City, against him, alongwith consequential

proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise, stated to have been effected between him and complainant Rajiv Kapoor @ Montu

and Mrs. Shama Kapoor - arrayed as respondents No.2 and 3.

When the petition came up for hearing on 20.4.2017, notice of motion was ordered to be issued. The respondent No. 1 - State of Punjab

through State counsel, whereas respondents No.2 and 3 through Mr. Harish Dwivedi, Advocate, had put in appearance. Then in light of the

contention that parties have since effected compromise, they were directed to put in appearance before the Illaqa Magistrate to get their statements

recorded with regard to compromise and the Illaqa Magistrate was directed to send a report to this Court.

Report has been received from Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, in terms of which complainant Rajiv Kapoor @ Montu and Mrs. Shama

Kapoor and accused, namely, Ashok Aggarwal had appeared there and their statements were recorded, in terms of which they have admitted to

have entered into a voluntary compromise, with free will, without any pressure, coercion or undue influence. Further complainant have stated that

they have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed by this Court. There is nothing on record to doubt the genuineness of the compromise so

arrived at between the parties. It has been reported that no accused has been declared proclaimed offender in the FIR in question. Alongwith the

report copies of statement of both the complainant and the accused, have been annexed.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel, besides going through the record.

Keeping in view the fact that the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably, which appears to have been arrived at between them

voluntarily without any threat or coercion and in terms of ratio of the authority reported as Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and

others 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, where in para 28, it has been held 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 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.

The compromise is in interest of peace and tranquility in the society and for such like reasons this Court can quash the FIR and ancillary

proceedings exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it appears to be a fit case to exercise such powers.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the abovesaid FIR alongwith ancillary proceedings are hereby quashed.