Randhir Singh @ Pinku and others vs State of Punjab and another

Vide this order I intend to dispose of CRM-M-43899 of

2016 titled as Randhir Singh @ Pinku and others vs. State of Punjab

and another and CRM-M-29922-2017 titled as Rajan and others vs.

State of Punjab and another, being version and cross version in the

same FIR and DDR..

Petitioners - Randhir Singh @ Pinku and others have

brought the CRM-M-43899 of 2016 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for

quashing of FIR No. 17 dated 1.2.2015, for offences under Sections

341, 342, 323, 148, 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar,

Jalandhar City against them, whereas petitioners - Rajan and others

have brought CRM-M-29922-2017 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for

quashing of DDR No. 20 dated 3.2.2015, against them, which is cross

version in the abovesaid FIR, alongwith consequential proceedings

arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise, stated to have been

effected between both the parties.

When the petitions came up for hearing, notice of motion

was ordered to be issued. The respondent No. 1 - State of Punjab

through State counsel, whereas respondent No.2 through Ms.

Subhreet Kaur, 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 trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate

to get their statements recorded with regard to compromise and the

trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was directed to send a report to this

Court.

Two separate reports have been received from Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, in terms of which Randhir

Singh @ Pinku, Navdeep Singh (complainant-respondent No.2 in

CRM-M-29922-2017), Harveer Singh @ Rajveer, Gurvinder Singh

@ Lucky, Kamaljit Singh @ Bunty, Gurinder Singh @ Gutti, Amarjit

Singh @ Peter, Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi, Jatinder Singh @ Lala and

Jatinder Singh @ Kala, accused-petitioners in CRM-M-43899-2016

and Rajan (complainant-respondent No.2 in CRM-M-43899-2016),

Raj Kumar, Shami, Rana, Sajan, Rajesh @ Sheru, Raj Kumar and

Sunny- accused petitioners in CRM-M-29922-2017, 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 they have

stated that they has no objection if the FIR/DDR 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.

Alongwith the report statements of the complainants and all the

accused, have been annexed.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

State counsel, besides going through the record.

Original compromise deed dated 3.8.2017 has been placed

on the file. It is stated that Ranjit Singh @ Gollu one of the petitioner

has gone abroad. He is signatory to the compromise deed and is

consenting party to the compounding of offences.

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, both the petitions are allowed and the

abovesaid FIR and DDR cross version in the said FIR, alongwith

ancillary proceedings are hereby quashed.