Nirmaljit Kaur, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 561 dated 12.10.2008 under Section 148, 149, 323, 324, 452 of Indian Penal Code, P S City Bhiwani, District Bhiwani (Annexure P -1) which was got registered by Respondent No. 2 -complainant against the present Petitioners on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2/Complainant -Pawan Kumar and injured Respondent No. 3 -Kamaldeep are present in Court along with their counsel and their affidavits have been filed in Court today. The same are taken on record. Affidavit of injured Respondent No. 4 -Santosh wife of Kamaldeep is already on record. As per the said affidavits, the present FIR was got registered on the statement of Respondent No. 2. Respondents No. 3 and 4 were the injured. With the intervention of the Panchayat, Complainant as well as the injured have amicable resolved their dispute with the present Petitioners and have no objection if the said FIR 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 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 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 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.
(3.) THE Apex Court in the case of 'Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab : (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.;