Dalbir Singh vs Budh Ram and Another

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.—The present petition has been filed u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 137 dated 11.6.2009 under Sections 304-A IPC Police Station Section 26, Chandigarh and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

The FIR in question was got registered by one Gassudin Alam, co-worker of the deceased, at the time of alleged incident. However, the Petitioner has compromised the matter with Respondent No. 1, who is the father of the deceased and is stated to be the only legal heir. Compromise deed (Annexure P-2) has also been placed on record in this regard.

The parties are present in the Court alongwith their respective counsel. Learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 has placed on record the affidavit of Respondent No. 1 admitting the factum of compromise submitting therein that his wife Smt. Renu Devi has died on 11.12.2004 and now he is residing with minor daughter Seema aged about 11 years. It is further submitted that he and his daughter are now the only legal heirs of the deceased and he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. 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 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 and the affidavit of the legal heir of the deceased stating that he has no objection if the FIR is quashed, 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. 137 dated 11.6.2009 under Sections 304-A IPC Police Station Section 26, Chandigarh and all subsequent proceedings arising there from are hereby quashed.