Balraj Singh @ Raja vs State of Punjab and another

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.—The present petition has been filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.177 dated 26.12.2010 registered u/s 407 IPC at Police Station City Batala and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The FIR in question was got registered by respondent No.2. However, the matter has been compromised due to the intervention of the respectables of the area. Compromise deed (Annexure P-2) has already been placed on record to this effect.

Vide order dated 8.2.2012, the parties were directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate on 23.2.2012 and the Illaqa Magistrate was directed to record the statements of the parties and send its report with respect to validity or otherwise of the compromise effected between the parties.

In pursuance to the same, report of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Batala has been received. As per the said report, the statements of the parties have been recorded. It is further submitted that from the statements of the parties, it appears that the matter has been compromised between the parties voluntarily and without any pressure.

Thus, there is no doubt that the matter has been compromised.

The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Cri) 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 u/s 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 u/s 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has thewide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar u/s 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 Vs. State of Punjab, , 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.

Taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties and the report received from the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.177 dated 26.12.2010 registered u/s 407 IPC at Police Station City Batala and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.