IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 11427 of 2010 Date of decision: 25.05.2010 Jaswinder Kaur ........ petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for respondent-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. 20 dated 30.01.2008 under Section 452, 323, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Islamabad, District Amritsar which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioner on the basis of the compromise dated 16.04.2010 having been arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. A separate statement of the complainant to the same effect has also been got recorded in the Court. Complainant Sawinder Kaur wife of Jaspal Singh has also filed affidavit in Court today stating therein that with the intervention of the respectables, the matter has been compromised and she has no objection in case the present FIR is quashed. The same is taken on record. Allegedly, the petitioner has some enmity with the complainant. In order to take revenge, on 28.01.2008, the petitioner forcibly entered into the house of the complainant and started beating her. This incident ultimately culminated into filing of the present FIR. Due to the intervention of the respectables, the misunderstanding has now been resolved. The complainant has entered into an agreement with the petitioner. She has no objection if the aforesaid FIR is quashed. 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.” The Apex Court in the case of 'Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised 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.” The present dispute is purely personal in nature and the compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed. Taking into account the allegations, affidavit as well as the statement of the complainant and the matter being totally personal in nature, 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 settled proposition of law. Accordingly, the aforesaid FIR and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 25.05.2010 mohan