IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-19913 of 2008 Date of Decision:8.3.2010 Yogesh .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. D.K. Bhatti, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** 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 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved for quashing of FIR No.18 dated 2.2.1996 registered under Sections 406/498-A/494/120-B IPC at Police Station Division No.6, Jalandhar (Annexure P-1) and its all consequential proceedings including judgment of the trial court dated 17.1.2006 (Annexure P-2) on account of the compromise arrived at before the learned District Judge, Jalandhar. The statements of the petitioner and respondent No.3 before the learned District Judge, Jalandhar dated 3.11.2007 and 3.12.2007 are also placed on record as Annexures P-6 and P-7 in this regard. An FIR No.18 dated 2.2.1996 under Sections 406/498- A/494/120-B IPC at Police Station Division No.6, Jalandhar was registered against the petitioner and his family members. Trial Court vide its judgment dated 17.1.2006 acquitted all the other co-accused except the present petitioner. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo under Section 498-A IPC for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-. The said CRM M-19913 of 2008 -2- judgment is placed on record as Annexure P-2. The petitioner filed an appeal in the Court Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jalandhar against the order of conviction. The said appeal is pending consideration. During the pendency of the appeal, a compromise has been effected between the parties. The petitioner and respondent No.3 have settled all the claims out of the matrimonial alliance in pursuance to the said compromise. Respondent No.3 has received entire amount as full and final settlement. The divorce in pursuance to the same has been granted under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act vide order dated 2.2.2010. A separate statement of respondent No.3 has also been recorded to the same effect in the Court today. As per the statement, respondent No.3 has no objection if the conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class is set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge. The Apex Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2008(2) RCR (Criminl) 910 while quashing the FIR and all proceedings arising out of the same held that the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. In that case also the petitioners were convicted under Section 498-A IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment of 18 months. An appeal was filed against the conviction order and during the pendency of the appeal, the parties had settled their differences. However, they filed petition before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint as well as conviction order on account of the compromise. The High Court dismissed the same. Aggrieved, they challenged the same before the Apex Court. The Apex Court accepted the compromise and quashed the FIR and all the proceedings arising out of the same, as well as order of conviction. CRM M-19913 of 2008 -3- This Court in the case of Sukhwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjan and another, 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 991 who relying upon the judgment of Khursheed and another v. State of U.P. And another, 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 495 allowed the petitioners to compound the offence under Section 452 IPC during the pendency of the appeal. In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, 2008 (4) S.C. Case 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under:- “ We need to emphasise that it is a 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 allegations arise out of a matrimonial dispute. In view of the settled proposition of law, it would be in the interest of justice to accept the compromise and allow the parties to move on in life. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are allowed to compound the offence. Accordingly, the parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Court on 16.3.2010 where the appeal is pending. Thereafter, the Appellate Court shall pass appropriate orders in the light of permission granted by this Court to the parties to compound the offence. The present petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. 8.3.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE