AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nirmaljit Kaur, J.
CRM M 40863 of 2010
This is an application for correction of father''s name of Respondents No. 2 in memo of parties.
Application is allowed and and Registry is directed to carry out the necessary correction as prayed for in the memo of parties. Main case
This is a petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 6 dated 15.01.2010 under Sections 323, 324, 341, 342, 34 IPC (Section 326 IPC added later on), P S Jhabhal, District Tarn Taran which was got registered by Respondent No. 2 -complainant against the present Petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 22.05.2010 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2.
It is stated by learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 that Resham Singh is present in Court. His affidavit has also been filed in Court today. The same is taken on record.
As per his affidavit the matter has been compromised vide compromise deed dated 22.05.2010 and he has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.
As per the allegations in the FIR, a fight took place between the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 on account of drawing water from the tubewell by the Petitioners through a plastic pipe spread through the fields of Respondent No. 2. Consequently, both the parties received injuries and thereafter, Respondent No. 2 got registered the present FIR. Now, the matter has been compromised between the parties.
The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR 1052 has observed 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 u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduced 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 exercising its power u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.
The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:
We need to emphasize 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 the allegations as well as affidavit of the complainant, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the above said settled proposition of law.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 6 dated 15.01.2010 under Sections 323, 324, 341, 342, 34 IPC (Section 326 IPC added later on), P S Jhabhal, District Tarn Taran and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.
Allowed in the aforesaid terms.