IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-15630 of 2009 Date of Decision:27.7.2010 Inderjit Kaur and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents And CRM M-19010 of 2010 Date of Decision:27.7.2010 Jasbir Singh and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. A.D.S. Sukhija, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. P.K. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) By this common judgment, Crl. M. No.15630-M of 2009 preferred by sisters-in-law and Crl. M. No.19010-M of 2010 preferred by Father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband can be decided together wherein prayer is for quashing of FIR No.70 dated 13.4.2007 registered under Sections 406, 498-A IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The FIR in question is a result of matrimonial dispute. Earlier, Criminal Misc. No.15630-M of 2009 was filed on merits on behalf of sisters-in-law. However, during the pendency of that petition, the parties CRM M-15630 of 2009 -2- have entered into a compromise due to intervention of the respectable of the area. Consequently, Criminal Misc. No.19010-M of 2010 has been filed by father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband on the basis of compromise. The matter has been compromised. Compromise deed (Annexure P-2) has been placed on record in Crl. M. No.19010-M of 2010. Affidavits of respondent No.2 and his daughter (aggrieved party) authenticating the compromise have also been placed on record. Separate statements of respondent No.2-complainant and his daughter (aggrieved party)authenticating the compromise is also recorded in the Court today. As per the compromise/affidavit, respondent No.2 and his daughter have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. It is stated that daughter of the complainant is now staying happily at her matrimonial home with her husband. It is further stated that the said compromise was entered into without any pressure and out of their own sweet will. 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 held that 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 not only in matrimonial discord but others as well, such compromise deserves to be accepted. It is further held as under:- “ 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 CRM M-15630 of 2009 -3- 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.” In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008 (4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised 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 approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” Taking into account that the allegation in FIR, the compromise, the affidavits of the complainant and his daughter and the statements before this Court authenticating the compromise, 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 FIR in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed and FIR No.70 dated 13.4.2007 registered under Sections 406, 498-A IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. A photo copy of this order be placed in the connected case. 27.7.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE