CRM No.M 17027 of 2010 # 1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAT AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No.M 17027 of 2010 Date of Decision:-04.08.2010 Manoj Kumar. ......Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab & Anr. ......Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. Navjeet Singh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Gaurav Kathuria, Advocate for Respondents No.2 & 3. JASWANT SINGH, J.(ORAL) Present petition under section 482 Cr.PC is for quashing of FIR No.116 dated 30.7.2008 under sections 363, 366 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of affidavit dated 18.2.2010 (Annexure P-3). The facts of the case are that petitioner Manoj had eloped with respondent no.3 Pinky and had solemnized marriage on 15.5.2008. It appears that she being allegedly of minor age, respondent CRM No.M 17027 of 2010 # 2# no.2 Neem Bahadur, father of Pinky lodged the aforementioned FIR against the petitioner-husband. Upon notice complainant-respondent no.2 is present in court and has been identified by his counsel. He states that he has reconciled to the marriage of the petitioner with his daughter Pinky who are now happily residing in their matrimonial home. He states that he does not wish to prosecute his son-in-law any further and has no objection if the present FIR and all subsequent proceedings are quashed. His statement to the said effect has been separately record. In view of the fact that the complainant-father does not wish to prosecute his son-in-law, in my opinion it is futile exercise to pursue the proceedings. A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash an FIR disclosing the commission of non- compoundable offences. The relevant extracts read 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 under Section 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 under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.” Similar views were expressed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in CRM No.M 17027 of 2010 # 3# Madan Mohan Abot v. State of Punjab 2008(4) SCC 582, the relevant extract of which is 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 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.” Keeping in view the above settled legal position and taking into account the fact that both the parties have desired to live in peace and harmony and carry on with their lives without any ill will or rancour by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, it is evident that it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of the FIR in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.116 dated 30.7.2008 under sections 363, 366 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE 04th August, 2010 Vinay.