IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M. No.M-15093 of 2009 Date of Decision:23.5.2011 Rattan Kaur and another .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. R.K. Chauchan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. M.S. Dhami, Advocate for respondent No.2-complainant. **** 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) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of criminal complaint No.221 dated 30.7.2001 titled as Gurjit Kaur v. Balwinder Singh and others and the consequent impugned summoning order dated 9.7.2002 passed by the Court of Sh. K.C. Gupta, JMIC, Hoshiarpur. The complaint in question is a result of matrimonial dispute and was got registered by respondent No.2-complainant. However, during the pendency of the present petition, the matter has been compromised between the parties. In this regard, this Court passed the following order on 28.4.2011: “ The matter is compromised. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 on instructions from respondent Crl. M. No.M-15093 of 2009 -2- No.2, who is present in the Court, states that respondent No.2 has not objection to the quashing of the complaint in question in case the petitioners pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in the form of draft in her name. Learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions from the petitioners, who are present in the Court, states that the petitioners shall bring the amount as aforesaid in the form of draft within 15 days from today. In the interest of justice, adjourned to 23.5.2011 to enable the petitioners to bring the said draft. The parties are directed to be present on the date fixed. The said compromise will be full and final settlement between the parties and both the parties shall also withdraw all the case pending against each other in different Courts.” In pursuance to the same, the parties are present in the Court alongwith their respective counsel. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has placed on record the affidavit of respondent No.2 admitting the factum of compromise. As per the said affidavit, respondent No.2 has no objection if the complaint in question is quashed. Respondent No.2, who is present in the Court, has also got her statement recorded to the effect that the matter has been compromised due to the intervention of the respectable of the area. She has entered into the said compromise out of her own free will. It is further stated by her that in pursuance to the compromise, she has received a draft bearing No.196528 amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- in the Court today, which is towards the full and final settlement. She Crl. M. No.M-15093 of 2009 -3- will not make any further claim against her husband and in-laws. She further undertakes to sign all the documents required for the purpose of transfer of the scooter No.PB-07 G 6846 and she has no objection if the complaint in question is quashed qua all the accused. 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 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 Crl. M. No.M-15093 of 2009 -4- 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 compromise has been effected between the parties, affidavit of respondent No.2 and the statement made by respondent No.2 stating that she has no objection if the complaint in question is quashed qua all the accused, 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 complaint in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and criminal complaint No.221 dated 30.7.2001 titled as Gurjit Kaur v. Balwinder Singh and others and the consequent impugned summoning order dated 9.7.2002 passed by the Court of Sh. K.C. Gupta, JMIC, Hoshiarpur and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties are hereby quashed qua all the accused. 23.5.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE