CRM No.M-27690 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-26.10.2010 Davinder Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Gursewak Singh Singhpuria, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G., Punjab. Mr.Dilwinder Singh Gill, Advocate for respondent No.2. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Tersenessly, the facts, which need a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, are that the marriage of complainant Santosh Rani (respondent No.2) was solemnized with petitioner No.1 Davinder Singh according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After solemnization of the marriage, they lived together and cohabited as husband and wife and a female child was born out of the said wedlock. The parents of the complainant were stated to have been given sufficient dowry articles at the time of her marriage. The petitioners-accused were not satisfied with the same. They demanded more dowry articles. When the illegal demand of the petitioners could not be fulfilled by the parents of the complainant, then they started harassing her. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the complainant claimed that the petitioners-accused treated her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the CRM No.M-27690 of 2010 2 present case was registered against the petitioners-accused, vide FIR No.209 dated 22.10.2008 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 406 and 498-A IPC by the police of Police Station City Mansa. 3. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report/challan against the petitioners-accused. What is not disputed here is that during the course of trial, the good sense prevailed and the matter was compromised between the parties at the intervention of respectables, vide compromise deed (Annexure P2). 4. That being so, the petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing the FIR (Annexure P1) and all subsequent proceedings thereto on the basis of compromise, invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia, pleading that the parties have mutually agreed to live separately from each other. They agreed to file a divorce petition by way of mutual consent under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner-husband was required to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- to complainant-respondent No.2 in lieu of permanent alimony. In pursuance thereof, the learned counsel for the petitioners has handed over a draft of Rs.3,50,000/- to the complainant, who is present today in Court. 5. Such thus being the position on record, now the sole question that arises for determination in this petition is as to whether it would be expedient in the interest of justice to quash the criminal prosecution or not? 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to me, justice would be sub-served if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter in this relevant connection. 7. The law of settlement of criminal disputes by virtue of compromise is not res-integra and is well settled. The clear and explicit intention of the Legislature in this regard was transformed in reality by Hon'ble Apex Court in CRM No.M-27690 of 2010 3 cases Manoj Sharma v. State & Ors. 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 827; B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana 2003 (2) RCR (Crl.) 888 (SC) and Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052. 8. The symposium of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is that the power under section 482 Cr.PC has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever- lasting congeniality in society and resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same, unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery if the statement is fair being free from under pressure. Meaning thereby, the High Court has unlimited power to quash the criminal proceedings, relatable to matrimonial disputes, on the basis of lawful settlement. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is fully attracted in the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 9. As is evident from the record that the parties have settled all their previous disputes and want to live in peace. To my mind, the compromise would be in the interest and welfare of the parties. Since the parties have lawfully agreed to settle the dispute, so, to my mind, there is no impediment in translating the wishes of the parties into reality and to quash the criminal prosecution to set the matter at rest to enable them to live in peace and to enjoy the life and liberty in a dignified manner as guaranteed by and as contemplated in the Constitution of India. 10. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No.209 dated 22.10.2008 (Annexure P1) and all CRM No.M-27690 of 2010 4 other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and the petitioners are discharged, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 26.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge