IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-19414 of 2009 (O/M). Date of Decision : September 01, 2009. Sahil Sharma and others. ...... Petitioners . Versus. State of Haryana, and another. ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners . Mr. Neeraj Bhutani, A.A.G., Haryana, for the respondent No. 1-State. Mr. Raj Karan Singh, Advocate, for the respondent No. 2-complainant. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The present petition is for quashing of F.I.R. No. 159, dated 28.05.2005 under Sections 498-A/406/323/506 I.P.C. registered at Police Station City Jind, on the basis of a compromise, which has been entered into leading to mutually agreeable settlement between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2-complainant. Counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioner No. 1 Sahil Sharma and respondent No. 2-complainant Bhawna Sharma were got married on 26.01.2004. On the basis of said marriage, initially there was certain misunderstanding, which had crept in between them, leading to filing of the present F.I.R. by respondent No. 2-complainant. On the basis of said F.I.R., after investigation of the case, challan has also been presented and the trial is pending before the Trial Court. He submits that during the pendency Criminal Misc. No. M-19414 of 2009. of the said trial, while an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was moved by the respondent No. 2-complainant before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, a compromise was entered into between the parties, leading to amicable resolution of dispute between them because of which the result whereof was that petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2-complainant started residing together as husband and wife. This resulted in withdrawing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance, filed by respondent No. 2-complainant. Copy of the said order has been placed on record as Annexure-P-3. He further contends that in the light of compromise having been entered into between the parties, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2-complainant are residing together as husband and wife, there is no further matrimonial discord between them and the matter having been amicably resolved, it would be in the interest of justice that the F.I.R. in question alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom be quashed. He further contends that accepting the factum of compromise, an affidavit dated 18.07.2009 of respondent No. 2-complainant has been attached with the petition as Annexure-P-4. Counsel for respondent No. 2-complainant submits that a compromise has indeed been entered into between the parties and now petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2-complainant are residing together as husband and wife and as a matter of fact, they have been blessed with a daughter. Now the continuance of the proceedings would not be in the interest of parties and respondent No. 2-complainant has no objection, if the F.I.R. in question alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioners be quashed. An affidavit dated 01.09.2009 of Bhawna Sharma daughther of Shri Sudhir Kumar, has been filed in the -2- Criminal Misc. No. M-19414 of 2009. Court, wherein it has been accepted by her that amicable resolution of the dispute has taken place and in accordance thereto, she is residing with petitioner No. 1 as his wife. Smt. Bhawna Sharma respondent No. 2- complainant is present in the Court (as has been identified by her counsel). On being asked by the Court, she states that she has no objection to quashing of F.I.R. alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.. She further states that now she is residing with her husband and having been blessed with a child, she does not want the proceedings to continue further more, which were initiated by her at the stage, when there was discord between her and her husband, which further created hurdle in their smooth life. In view of the position which has been reflected above, the dispute primarily in the nature of matrimonial, having been amicably resolved between petitioner No. 1 namely Sahil Sharma and respondent No. 2-complainant namely Bhawna Sharma, and are residing together as husband and wife, the F.I.R., which was registered at the behest of respondent No. 2- complainant Bhawna Sharma, should not stand in the way of smooth matrimonial life of both of them, so that there is no cause for any concern to any of the parties and they can amicably continue their lives on a happy note. Reliance can be made upon the Larger Bench Judgment of this Court in the case Kulwinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another 2007(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1052, while discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise, by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non-compoundable offences, has held as under :- -3- Criminal Misc. No. M-19414 of 2009. “28. 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 reduces 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 by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation. 29. 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.” Therefore, in view of the discussion above, since the parties have amicably settled the matter, which is otherwise in the interest of justice and appears to have been effected to promote peace and harmony amongst the parties, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned F.I.R. No. 159, dated 28.05.2005 under Sections 498-A/406/323/506 I.P.C. registered at Police Station City Jind, and all other consequential proceedings arising there from are quashed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE September 01, 2009. sjks. -4-