Gurpreet Singh and Others vs State of Haryana and Another

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.—This is a petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 335 dated 14.10.2010 under Sections 148/149/323/325/506 IPC registered at Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

Notice of motion.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Amit Rana, learned D.A.G., Haryana accepts notice on behalf of Respondent-State.

The FIR was registered against the present Petitioner by Respondent No. 2-Amarpreet Singh s/o Sh. Kuldeep Singh, alleging therein that the Petitioner has caused injuries to the complainant. Due to the intervention of the respectable persons of the society, the compromise has been effected between the parties. They are now living peacefully. There is no grudge between them. As per the compromise, the complainant Respondent No. 2-Amarpreet Singh does not wish to pursue the above mentioned FIR against the present Petitioners. The complainant, in person, is present in the Court. The matter having been compromised, it is 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 the FIR.

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 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 the wide 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-3004 of 2010 3 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.

It is apparent from the allegations in the FIR that the matter is between the students. The matter has since been compromised without any pressure. The compromise is placed on record as P-2. In view of the facts of the present case and taking into account that the Petitioners and parties herein are young students and also taking into account the settled position of law, the Court deems it proper to accept the compromise in the interest of justice and the FIR is quashed in order to promote peace, harmony as well as to allow the parties to now move on in life. The matter having been compromised, the continuation of the litigation would be a futile exercise.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 335 dated 14.10.2010 under Sections 148/149/323/325/506 IPC registered at Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula is, hereby, quashed in the interest of justice.