1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 24983-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 20.11.2008 *** Smt. Rajrani & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. P. Dwivedi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. B.S. Sra, DAG Punjab. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Through the instant petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No. 3 dated 1.8.2006, registered under Sections 406, 498-A of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station City Nawanshahar and consequent proceedings taken therein on the basis of compromise stated to have entered between them. Petitioner No.1 is the mother-in-law and petitioner No.2 is husband of complainant-respondent No.2 while remaining petitioners are relation of husband. It has been contended that on account of strained relations between the married couple, who were married on 22.6.2005, the instant FIR was got registered by respondent No.2 and now with the intervention of respectables, the matter has been settled and the respondent No.2 has also obtained a decree of divorce by filing a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act vide award dated 24.7.2008. Compromise (Annexure P-2) and affidavit of complainant-respondent No.2 (Annexure P- 3) have also been placed on record containing the recitals of the parties having entered into the settlement and no objection of the complainant in quashing of the impugned FIR pursuant to the said compromise. 2 It emerges out from the record that petitioner No.2-husband is presently residing abroad and has filed the instant petition through his GPA- petitioner No.3 and that he is not facing prosecution and has been declared as proclaimed offender. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the strength of decisions rendered by this Court in the cases titled as Rajinder Singh @ Rajinder Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. 2003(1) RCR (Criminal) 123 and Crl. Misc. No. 9793-M of 2003, titled as Moti Lal Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., decided on 22.4.2008, has contended that since the complainant has decided to withdraw from the prosecution, the continuance of proceedings against petitioner No.2-husband will serve no good purpose, even though he is proclaimed offender, but has compromised the matter. That apart, learned counsel for the petitioners has also made an offer to pay an amount of Rs.40,000/- additionally to the settled amount. Even respondent No.2, who has duly authenticated the compromise has averred her no objection for quashing of proceedings against petitioner No.2 as well, irrespective of the fact that he has been declared proclaimed offender and presently is residing abroad. Further, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a hard case and continuance of proceedings against the husband might not create any unhappy situation, resulting into upsetting of the total scenario. Moreover, the parties have taken divorce from each other and they have acquired independent status in the society. By now it is fully settled that the High Court in exercise of inherent powers can quash the proceedings if it finds that allowing of any such proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court or that ends of justice require that the proceedings be quashed. In the case of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswami, AIR 1977 SC 1489, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the ends of justice are higher than ends of mere law, though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the legislature yet the Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In the case of Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya and others 1980(1) SCC 63, the essence of compromise has been summed up in following words:- “ The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when 3 parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.” The Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulvinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, while discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise, by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non- compoundable offence(s) has held as under:- “28. 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, 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 by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation. 29. 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.” 4 In the instant case, as emerges from record, the parties have mutually settled their dispute and have purchased peace for each other and have part their ways by taking divorce. Taking into account these facts, this Court is of the considered view that continuance of such a prosecution is nothing but an exercise in futility and sheer wastage of time of Court. Therefore, considering the aspect of settlement having arrived at between the parties, it is a fit case where interference of this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned FIR and all other consequent proceedings thereto are quashed. However, it is made clear that if the said amount of Rs.40,000/- is not paid to the complainant within a period of one month, the instant petition deems to have been dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE November 20, 2008 Jiten