CRM No. M 19366 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 19366 of 2010 Date of decision: 08.02.2011 Joginder Singh and others ........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. R P Singh, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Sidrath Sarup, DAG, Haryana for the respondent - State Mr. Sanjay Nagapl, 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) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 81 dated 13.06.2010 under Section 306, 511 of Indian Penal Code, P S Sadar, Gurdaspur, District Gurdaspur, Punjab (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 17.06.2010 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as CRM No. M 19366 of 2010 2 Annexure P-2. Petitioners No. 1 to 3 are father-in-law, husband and sister-in- law of complainant/respondent No. 2. The said FIR was registered at the instance of complainant-respondent No.2 on the allegations that the petitioners had made an attempt to abet the complainant to commit suicide. The allegation is that respondent No. 2 tried to commit suicide. Respondent No. 2 is alive and did not succeed in the attempt. Thus, if at all, it is a case of Section 309/511 and not a case of Section 306. On 05.10.2010, the matter was listed for hearing before the co-ordinate Bench and the same was adjourned for 08.02.2011 while observing as under:- “The FIR can be quashed on the basis of compromise but in the interest of justice to enable the parties to amicably settle the dispute with the passage of time and to ensure their long term cordial relations. Petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 2 will be present in the Court on the next date of hearing.” In pursuance to the same, petitioner No. 2 and respondent No.2 are present in Court. Respondent No. 2 has also suffered a statement in Court today, stating therein, that she is happily residing with her husband- petitioner No. 2 in her matrimonial house and she does not wish to pursue the said FIR. 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 CRM No. M 19366 of 2010 3 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 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 parties have decided to resolve their matrimonial dispute and live together. The parties are now residing happily together. Quashing of the FIR will bring the two families together and will also help them to sink their differences. Forgive and forget is the watchword of a happy married life. Thus, it would be in the interest of the parties and society at large as the parties have decided to live peacefully CRM No. M 19366 of 2010 4 together. Taking into account the allegations, compromise dated 17.06.2010 as well as statement 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. Moreover as discussed above, section 306 is not made out. If at all it is a case of Section 309/511 IPC. As such, there is no impediment to accept the compromise in the facts of the case. Moreover, the parties i.e. Husband and wife are happily residing together. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 81 dated 13.06.2010 under Section 306, 511 IPC, P S Sadar, Gurdaspur, District Gurdaspur, Punjab (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 08.02.2011 mohan