Crl. Misc. No.M-19654 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-19654 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22.02.2011 Sarwan Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab etc. ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. J.B.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Gurveen H. Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. ***** 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. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.184 dated 15.12.2006 under Sections 498-A/494/109/506/120-B IPC registered at Police Station Hariana, District Hoshiarpur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, however, opposed the present petition on the ground that the petitioner is a proclaimed offender and that the matter has not been compromised with the respondent but with one Kuldeep Singh son of Amar Singh. Heard. The facts, in short, are that the marriage between the Crl. Misc. No.M-19654 of 2010 2 petitioner and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 22.01.2003 at Suraj Palace near Bhikhowal District Hoshiarpur according to Sikh rites. After the marriage, the parties lived together and cohabited as husband and wife and from the said wedlock, twin daughters, namely, Gurleen Saini and Sukhleen Saini were born and both are residing with their grand parents. Before the marriage, the petitioner was living in Italy and used to visit India off and on. The relations between the petitioner and respondent No.2 became strained. Ultimately, on the statement of respondent No.2, a case vide FIR No.184 dated15.12.2006 was registered at Police Station Hariana, District Hoshiarpur for offences under Section 498- A/494/109/506/120-B IPC against the petitioner and others. With the intervention of the respectables of the village and relatives of the parties, the dispute between them has since been settled amicably and voluntarily. Now, there is no dispute between the parties and both of them have decided to live separately. The question of custody of the children has also been settled. The compromise was executed on 22.05.2008. The said compromise is duly signed by Gurbachan Singh and father of respondent No.2 and Sarpanch of the Village Khudda and other respectable and relatives. After the settlement of the dispute, the respondent No.2 filed petition for divorce and consequently, the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.2 was dissolved by an ex-parte decree passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur vide judgment dated 18.04.2009. The FIR arises out of a matrimonial dispute. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C through his counsel. The Power of Attorney in favour of the counsel is duly placed on record. The compromise has been effected by Gurbachan Singh, attorney of the present petitioner and Kuldeep Singh son of Amar Singh, who is the father of Ravinder Kaur-respondent No.2. The said compromise is stated to be Crl. Misc. No.M-19654 of 2010 3 duly signed by the respectables of the Village and relatives of the party. As per the affidavit of the father of the complainant-Shri Kuldeep Singh, the matter has been settled amicably vide compromise deed Annexure P-2. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.2 has already been dissolved by decree of divorce. It is further stated by him that his daughter has remarried and is living happily with her husband in foreign Country. It is further stated in the affidavit that respondent No.2 has executed General Power of Attorney on 05.03.2010 in favour of her father- Kuldeep Singh. It is also stated by him that he is executing the present affidavit as the attorney of Ravinder Kaur-respondent No.2 and that she has no objection, if the FIR, in question, is quashed. In view of the above, this Court has no doubt that the matter has been amicably settled, especially because, the decree of divorce has been passed between the parties. The father of respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit that his daughter has no objection, if the FIR is quashed. Respondent no.2 has executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of her father to enter into compromise and he has filed the present affidavit on her behalf. The said Power of Attorney is also placed on record along with the affidavit of Kuldeep Singh, the father of the complainant. Moreover, the complainant-respondent No.2 is now happily married and is living with her husband in foreign country. The continuation of the present proceedings will come in the way of her peaceful existence in her new life. Thus, it would be in the interest of justice to accept the compromise. The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. 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, Crl. Misc. No.M-19654 of 2010 4 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 vs. 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.” In the present case, the dispute arises out of the matrimonial dispute. The same has been compromised. In view of the settled position of law, it would be just and proper to quash the FIR for peace, harmony and thus allow the parties to move on in life. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.184 dated 15.12.2006 under Sections 498-A/494/109/506/120-B IPC registered Crl. Misc. No.M-19654 of 2010 5 at Police Station Hariana, District Hoshiarpur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 22.02.2011 JUDGE gurpreet