CRM No. M 9030 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 9030 of 2009 Date of decision: 19.01.2011 Arpit and others ........Petitioners Versus State ofHaryana and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Sidrath Sarup, AAG, Haryana for the respondent - State Mr. J K Bhatti, Advocate for Mr. J L Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No. 2 - complainant -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. FIR No. 367 dated 09.09.2008 under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 34 of Indian Penal Code, P S City Hansi (Annexure P-7) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 29.06.2010 arrived at between the parties during the pendency of the petition. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that during the pendency of the petition, the matter has been compromised vide CRM No. M 9030 of 2009 2 compromise deed dated 29.06.2010 (P12). The same was ordered to be placed on record vide order dated 23.07.2010 passed in CRM No. 37183 of 2010. On the other hand, Mr. J K Bhatti, Advocate proxy counsel for Mr. J L Malhotra, counsel for respondents No. 2 states that he has instructions to state that the matter has been compromised and that the complainant/respondent No. 2 has no objection if the said FIR is quashed. As per compromise, the marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably and it is not possible for them to reside jointly in future and the parties have decided to live separately and have no relation with each other. It is also mentioned in the compromise that no child was born out of the wedlock. Both the parties shall abide by all the terms and conditions of the deed. 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. 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.” CRM No. M 9030 of 2009 3 The Apex Court in the case of 'Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasized 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.” Taking into account the allegations, compromise dated 29.06.2010 as well as statement made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the above said settled proposition of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 367 dated 09.09.2008 under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 34 of Indian Penal Code, P S City Hansi (Annexure P-7) and subsequent proceedings arising out the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 19.01.2011 mohan