IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 14848 of 2010 Date of decision: 19.05.2010 Rajesh Sood and others ........ petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Brijeshwar Singh Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent- State Mr. Sandeep S Majithia, Advocate for respondent No. 2 - complainant -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) Reply by way of affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 2 has been filed in Court today. The same is taken on record. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 73 dated 17.05.2007 under Section 317 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Khanna, Khanna which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise having been arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. Separate statements of the complainant as well as petitioner No. 1 have also been got recorded in the Court to the same effect. In his statement, petitioner No. 1 stated that he shall not file any complaint against Ambika and her family members. Affidavit of Complainant Ambika Sood has also been placed on record as Annexure P-2 stating therein that she has no objection if the aforesaid F.I.R and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are quashed against the present petitioners. The matrimonial dispute between petitioner No. 1- husband and respondent No. 2 - complainant ultimately resulted into registration of the present FIR. However, the matter has since been compromised amicably with the intervention of the friends and respectables of the parties. The compromise dated 13.05.2010 has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. 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 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 present case is purely personal in nature and the compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainant has no objection if the said FIR and all other proceedings arising out of the same are quashed against the present petitioners. Taking into account the allegations, affidavit as well as the statement of the complainant and the matter being totally personal in nature, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR as well as the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the settled proposition of law. Accordingly, the aforesaid FIR and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 19.05.2010 mohan