IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-22484 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 22.10.2009 Sanjiv Kumar and others ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Punjab and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Vivek Rattan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Jitender Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. The present petition is for quashing of FIR No.42 dated 6.4.2007 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 406/498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Sunam and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise which has been entered into between the parties. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the present dispute which has arisen between the petitioners and respondent No.2 was primarily a matrimonial dispute and during the pendency of the FIR, the matter has been amicably settled between them with the intervention and persuasion of the relatives, friends and well-wishers. He states that in the light of the compromise, petitioner No.1 Sanjiv Kumar and complainant-respondent No.2 Manisha Rani have obtained a decree of divorce under Section 13-B of Crl.Misc.No.M-22484 of 2009 -2- the Hindu Marriage Act (Annexure P-6). He, on the basis of the compromise which has been entered into between the parties, prays for quashing of the FIR. In response to the petition, an affidavit dated 5.10.2009 of Manisha Rani-respondent No.2-complainant has been filed in Court. Counsel for the respondent on the basis of the said affidavit submits that in the light of the decree of divorce by mutual consent granted in favour of the complainant and petitioner No.1 and also in the light of the compromise so entered into between the parties and there being no other dispute pending between them, the FIR may be quashed as the complainant has no objection to the same. Manisha Rani, respondent No.2, who is present in Court and has been identified by her counsel, states that she does not have any objection if the FIR, which was initiated at her behest, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed in the light of the compromise which has been entered into between the parties. She further states that all the disputes have been amicably resolved between her and petitioner No.1 Sanjiv Kumar. She has parted ways with him and thus, they have no concern with each other. In view of he above fact and the statement which has been made by complainant-respondent No.2 Manisha Rani, it would be in the interest of justice that the FIR in question and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. The matter has been amicably resolved and the dispute, if any, which was earlier existing between the parties no more survives and, therefore, the purpose for which law has been enacted stands Crl.Misc.No.M-22484 of 2009 -3- duly served. A Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, while discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non-compoundable offence(s), has held as under:- “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.” Crl.Misc.No.M-22484 of 2009 -4- 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 FIR No.42 dated 6.4.2007 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 406/498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Sunam and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. October 22, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE