Crl.M.No.28795-M of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.28795-M of 2010 Date of Order: 30.9.2010 Kuldip Singh .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr.P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) Prayer under Section 482 Cr.P.C is for quashing of FIR No.261 dated 21.6.2010 under Sections 498-A/405 IPC, P.S Civil Lines, Amritsar on the basis of compromise arrived at between the husband and wife before the Mediation Center. Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Sh. Gaurav Garg, Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab, who is present in court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1 whereas Smt Deepa Asdhir Dubey, Advocate puts in appearance for respondent No.2-complainant. In view of the petition bearing Crl.M.No.20791-M of 2010 filed by the petitioner-husband seeking anticipatory bail in the afore mentioned FIR being listed for today, present petition, with the consent of the parties, is also taken for hearing today. As per allegations in the FIR, petitioner used to harass the complainant-respondent No.2 and gave beatings on account of bringing less dowry. On 29.9.2010, the case was adjourned to await the report from the Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court. A report dated 22.9.2010 of Sh. Vikrant Sharma, Advocate, Crl.M.No.28795-M of 2010 #2# who had been appointed as Mediator, has been received in a petition bearing Crl.M.No.20791-M of 2010 filed by the petitioner-husband for grant of anticipatory bail stating that a compromise has been effected between the husband and wife on 22.9.2010 in the presence of the said Mediator, which is taken on record as Mark-A. Respondent No.2 is present in court and has been identified by her counsel Smt Deipa Asdhir Dubey. She (respondent No.2) has stated that she has reached a compromise with the petitioner and she owns the compromise dated 22.9.2010. Statements of the parties have been separately recorded in court today whereby the petitioner has stated that he owns up the compounding and recognize his signatures put on the agreement/compromise dated 22.9.2010. Respondent No.2 has also made statement to the aforesaid effect stating that she has compromised the matter and has received a sum of Rs.2.65 lacs from the petitioner-husband and that she has no objection if the present FIR and all subsequent proceedings are quashed. Learned state counsel is unable to raise any serious objection to the quashing of the FIR on the basis of the compromise since the complainant is not willing to support the prosecution case. 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 Crl.M.No.28795-M of 2010 #3# 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 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 Crl.M.No.28795-M of 2010 #4# 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 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.261 dated 21.6.2010 under Sections 498-A/405 IPC, P.S Civil Lines, Amritsar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. It is clarified that the parties shall be bound by the terms of the compromise and in case, there is any violation of any term by any of the parties, he/she shall render himself/herself to contempt proceedings besides revival of the present proceedings. September 30, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE Crl.M.No.28795-M of 2010 #5#