Crl. Misc.No.M 8029 of 2010(O&M) # 1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAT AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc.No.M 8029 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision:-28.09.2010 Satnam Singh Toor & Ors. ......Petitioners. Versus State of Punjab & Another. ......Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. D.S. Malwai, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab. Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate for Mr. R.K. Girdhar, Advocate for respondent no.2-Complainant. *** JASWANT SINGH, J. Crl. Misc.No.14351 of 2010 Application under Section 482 Cr.PC seeking exemption from filing the certified copy of the FIR is allowed as prayed for. Crl. Misc.No.M 8029 of 2010 Prayer is under section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of FIR No.03 dated 1.1.2009 under Sections 406, 420, 498-A of Indian Penal Crl. Misc.No.M 8029 of 2010(O&M) # 2# Code registered with Police Station Kotwali Faridkot, District Faridkot and consequential proceedings arising out of the same on the basis of compromise dated 10.3.2010(Annexure P-1). In the FIR, complainant Simranjit Kaur had levelled allegations against the petitioners that petitioner no.3 being her husband and petitioners no.1 & 2 her in-laws used to harass, torture and also gave beatings to her on account of bringing insufficient dowry. They also refused to gave back her passport on her demand. While issuing notice of motion parties were directed to appear before the learned trial court by making appropriate application who shall record their statements and submit his report regarding the genuineness of the compromise. Respondent no.2-Complainant Simranjit Kaur has also stated in affidavit of settlement(Annexure P-2) executed between the parties that she has settled all her disputes with the petitioners for a sum of Rs.16,00,000/-(Rupees Sixteen lacs only) as full and final settlement and has also agreed to withdraw all the pending cases against the petitioners. Report (Mark-A)accompanied by letter dated 13.9.2010 of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot along with photocopies of statements of respondent no.2 as well as of petitioners no.1 & 2 has been received wherein it is stated that the parties appeared before that court and suffered statements recorded separately before that court. Complainant in her statement has stated that she has compromised the matter with the accused persons and has no objection if the aforesaid Crl. Misc.No.M 8029 of 2010(O&M) # 3# FIR and all consequential proceedings are quashed against them. From the report submitted it is evident that the dispute between the petitioners-accused and the complainant has been amicably resolved by entering into compromise wherein the complainant has stated that she has no objection if the present FIR against the petitioners-accused is quashed. Learned State Counsel on instructions from ASI Rachpal Singh is unable to raise any serious objection in view of the aforesaid compromise wherein the complainant has deposed on the basis of the compromise since the complainant is not willing to pursue the present FIR. However, learned counsel for the State points out that the petitioner no.3 is a NRI and has been declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 24.9.2009. It is evident from the statement that she does not wish to pursue this case against her husband. A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash an FIR disclosing the commission of non- compoundable offences. The relevant extracts read 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 Crl. Misc.No.M 8029 of 2010(O&M) # 4# 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.” Similar views were expressed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abot v. State of Punjab 2008(4) SCC 582, the relevant extract of which is 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.” Keeping in view the above settled legal position and taking into account the fact that both the parties have desired to live in peace and harmony and carry on with their lives without any ill will or rancour by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, it is evident that it is a fit case where there is no legal impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of the FIR in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.03 dated 1.1.2009 under Sections 406, 420, 498-A of Indian Penal Code registered with Police Station Kotwali Faridkot, District Faridkot and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed against all the Crl. Misc.No.M 8029 of 2010(O&M) # 5# petitioners, however, since petitioner no.3 was declared as proclaimed offender by the trial court, therefore, it is ordered that he is directed to deposit a cost of Rs.20,000/- with Punjab State Legal Services Authority within three weeks from today failing which order qua him shall be deemed to be ineffective. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE 28th September, 2010 Vinay