CRM No. M 2386 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 2386 of 2010 Date of decision: 29.10.2010 Jaspal Singh and others ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. H S Bhullar, Advocate for for the petitioners Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent - State Mr. Vikas Bali, 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.124 dated 17.06.2009 under Sections 498-A, 406, 494 of Indian Penal Code, PS Gobindgarh Mandi, District Fatehgarh Sahib (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 13.02.2010 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. CRM No. M 2386 of 2010 2 The petitioners as well as the complainant are present Court. Separate statement of petitioner No. 2 - Parminder Singh is got recorded in the Court today, stating therein that he is bound by the terms and condition of the compromise and he shall appear appear before the concerned Court on 02.05.2011 at the time of final hearing of petition filed under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1995 and shall make statement to the effect that he has no objection if the divorce is granted. Further, he also assured that the balance amount i.e. `75,000/- shall be paid to the complainant on the said date by way of bank draft. Similarly, a separate statement is also got recorded by the complainant in Court today that she has no objection if the FIR is quashed, in case, petitioner No. 2 shall appear before the concerned court, where a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce is pending and shall make a statement that petitioner No. 2 has no objection if divorce is granted. In the case in hand, the marital discord led to filing of the present FIR. Now, the matter has been amiably resolved between the parties through a compromise deed (P-2). The complainant has no objection if the said 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, CRM No. M 2386 of 2010 3 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 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 as well as the statements of the complainant and petitioner 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. CRM No. M 2386 of 2010 4 Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.124 dated 17.06.2009 under Sections 498-A, 406, 494 of Indian Penal Code, PS Gobindgarh Mandi, District Fatehgarh Sahib (Annexure P-1) and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. However, it is also made clear that if either on account of the failure on the part of petitioner No. 2 or otherwise, the divorce is not granted, the complainant shall have the right to revive the present petition. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 29.10.2010 mohan