Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 655 (PNJ)

Pankaj Ahuja v. State of Punjab

2011-02-25

NIRMALJIT KAUR

body2011
JUDGMENT Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) - CRM 1600 of 2011 This is an application praying for disposal of main case as the matter has been settled between the parties. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, main case is being taken up for final disposal on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. Main case 3. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of Complaint titled Kashmir Singh v. Pawan Ahuja and others under Sections 392, 342, 352, 323, 506, 34 IPC pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar and summoning order dated 22.12.2003 passed by the JMIC, Amritsar. 4. Complainant -Kashmir Singh is present in Court today along with his counsel and has filed his affidavit, stating therein, that during the pendency of the aforesaid case, the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner and the complainant due to the intervention of the respectables and common friends vide compromise deed dated 02.02.2011. Photostat copy of the compromise deed has also been placed on record. In his affidavit, the complainant has also stated that he does not want to pursue with the matter and has no objection if the complaint is quashed. 5. Complainant has also got recorded his statement in Court today, stating therein, that in pursuance to the compromise, he has received a bank draft bearing No. 834474 dated 24.02.2011 for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-issued by the ICICI Bank Limited Chandigarh Branch, SCO No. 9, 10,11, Sector 9, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh in Court and has no objection if the said complaint is quashed. 6. In the present case, due to some dispute regarding non-payment of installments of the loan amount, the financier had taken over the possession of the vehicle. Now, the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties and complainant has no objection if the said complaint is quashed. 7. 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. 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.” 8. 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.” 9. The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed. 10. Taking into account the allegations, compromise deed dated 02.02.2011 as well as affidavit dated 25.02.2011 of the complainant, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present complaint and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the above said settled proposition of law. 11. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and Complaint titled Kashmir Singh v. Pawan Ahuja and others under Sections 392, 342, 352, 323, 506, 34 IPC pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar as well as summoning order dated 22.12.2003 passed by the JMIC, Amritsar and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms.