CRM No. M 28200 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- Date of decision: 09.02.2011 1. CRM No. M 28200 of 2010 Vijay Kumar ........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) 2. CRM No. M 18389 of 2010 Ram Asra and others ........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Om Pal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner (CRM M 28200 of 2010) Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the petitioners (CRM M 18389 of 2010) Ms Neelam, AAG, Punjab Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for respondent No. 2 - complainant -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) Since, both the aforesaid petitions arise out of the same FIR. CRM No. M 28200 of 2010 2 Hence, they are being disposed of by this common order. For convenience, facts are being taken from CRM M 18389 of 2010. In both these petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No. 201 dated 24.06.2009 under Section 498, 498-A, 406, 506, 323 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, P S Basti Jodhewal, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 13.09.2010 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2 in CRM M 28200 of 2010. Vide order dated 17.12.2010 passed in CRM M 18389 of 2010, the parties were directed to appear before the Illaqua Magistrate on 17.01.2011 and make statements regarding the matter having been compromised. Report in that regard was also called for. In pursuance to the order passed in CRM M 18389 of 2010, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, vide letter dated 01.02.2011 has submitted his report, stating therein, that Accused Mohan Lal, Ram Asra, Baljit Kaur alias Bimla Rani (petitioners in CRM M 18389 of 2010) and Vijay Kumar (petitioner in CRM M 28200 of 2010) have suffered statement in the Court that they have compromised the matter with complainant Sukhwinder Kaur vide compromise deed dated 13.09.2010. On the other hand, complainant Sukhwinder Kaur also suffered statement in the Court to the effect that she heard the statement of the accused present in the Court. The matter has been settled through compromise dated 13.09.2010, Ex C1, which is correct and bears her signatures as well as the signatures of the accused party and witnesses. The said compromise effected by her without CRM No. M 28200 of 2010 3 any pressure or coercion from any side and she also settled her all the claims with the accused. She has no objection if the FIR of this case may be quashed. In the present case, the matrimonial disputes led to filing of the present FIR. Now, the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties. 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, 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 CRM No. M 28200 of 2010 4 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, compromise dated 13.09.2010 as well as report of the Magistrate and affidavit of the complainant, 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. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 201 dated 24.06.2009 under Section 498, 498-A, 406, 506, 323 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, P S Basti Jodhewal, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Both the petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms. Copy of the order be placed on the connected file. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 09.02.2011 mohan