GURMEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 86 dated 22.10.1997 under Sections 419, 420, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sadar, Kotkapura, District Faridkot (Annexure P-1) got registered by respondent No. 2 -complainant against the present petitioner and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same on the basis of the compromise having been arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-5. A separate statement of complainant-Gurdev Singh has also been got recorded in the Court to the same effect. Complainant Gurdev Singh has also filed his reply by way of affidavit stating therein that he has no objection if the F.I.R is quashed. The same is taken on record. It would be relevant to note the facts of the present case. Respondent No. 2 - Gurdev Singh had got the present FIR registered against the present petitioner and one Kuldeep Singh son of Ajaib Singh, alleging therein that they got a power of attorney in a deceitful manner and pledged the property of the complainant for a sum of Rs.1,99,000/-. However, the matter has since been compromised amicably with the intervention of the friends and relatives of the parties. The compromise dated 02.02.2010 has been placed on record as Annexure P-5. 3. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another-2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 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 under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 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 under Section 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 v. State of Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows: 6. 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. 4. The present dispute is purely personal in nature and the compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed. Keeping the Criminal proceedings alive will be a futile exercise. 5. Taking into account the allegations, reply by way of affidavit as well as the statement of the complainant and the matter being totally personal in nature, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR in view of the well settled propositions of law. 6. Accordingly, the aforesaid FIR and further proceedings arising out of the same qua the present petitioner are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms.