Navsher Singh Puar and Others vs U.T. and Another

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.—The present petition has been filed u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 350 dated 18.7.2009 under Sections 406/506/34 IPC Police Station Sector 34 Chandigarh and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

The FIR in question is a result of matrimonial dispute. However, the matter was stated to have been compromised. Compromise deed (Annexure P-2) has been placed on record.

Accordingly, notice of motion was issued on 26.7.2010. On 27.9.2010 the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate on 28.10.2010. The trial Court was further directed to record a finding whether any volunteer compromise has been arrived at between the parties.

In pursuance to the same, report from the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh has been received submitting therein that statements of complainant Anjuman and accused Navsher Singh have been recorded. It is further submitted that as per the statements of the parties, it seems that compromise effected between the parties is genuine one and the said compromise was effected them without any pressure or coercion. It is also submitted that as per the compromise, Respondent No. 2-complainant has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

Thus, it is apparent from the report of the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class,Chandigarh, that the matter has been compromised.

The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. 2007(3) RCR 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 Code of Criminal Procedure 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 Code of Criminal Procedure 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 the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar u/s 320 of the Code of criminal Procedure 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, compromise (Annexure P-2) and the report of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR in the interest of justice.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 350 dated 18.7.2009 under Sections 406/506/34 IPC Police Station Sector 34 Chandigarh and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.