Crl. Misc. No.M-34563 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-34563 of 2009 Date of Decision: 14.10.2010 Harminder Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & anr. ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. H.S. Baath, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. Ms. Parvinder Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** 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. This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing the FIR No.59 dated 25.04.2008 under Sections 307, 328 and 498-A IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Roopnagar, District Ropar on the basis of affidavit P-2 filed by respondent No.2 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. As per the allegations made in the FIR that on 24.04.2008 at about 9.00 a.m., the petitioner gave fist blows and slaps the complainant- Amarjit Kaur and then took out a bottle of poisonous substance from his pocket and forcibly put the same in her mouth and because of that she Crl. Misc. No.M-34563 of 2009 2 became unconscious. An FIR under Section 307 IPC etc. was registered. Normally, this Court would not have entertained the quashing in an offence of such a nature. However, the peculiar facts and circumstances in the present case have moved the Court to accept the compromise. Respondent no.2-Amarjit Kaur is the author of the FIR against her husband i.e. the petitioner-Harminder Singh. Petitioner and respondent No.2 have a son out of the wedlock. The matter has since been compromised. The petitioner and respondent No.2 have resolved to live peacefully and happily with one another. The FIR was registered in April 2008. In fact, after the FIR, the petitioner and respondent No.2 are residing together for the last two years. Respondent no.2, who is present in the Court, has made a separate statement in the Court today. It is duly stated by her that she is living happily with her husband ever since and wanted the FIR quashed. Moreover, it is in her interest and the interest of her son and her family that the FIR in question should be quashed. The Court is satisfied that the compromise is genuine. The girl pleaded before the Court that FIR registered by her be quashed for the sake of her child and also on account of the fact that the husband and wife wish to reside together, peacefully. In fact, the parties are living happily and amicably for the last two years. A son was born to her after the registration of the FIR. In such circumstances, it would be in the interest of the girl and the child to accept the compromise and FIR is quashed as the same is, in any case, on account of a matrimonial dispute. The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that 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 Crl. Misc. No.M-34563 of 2009 3 compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is “finest hour of justice”. Disputes which have their genesis not only in matrimonial discord but others as well, such compromise deserves to be accepted. It is further held as under :- “ 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.” In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under :- “ We need to emphasise 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 compromise will not only allow the parties to sink their differences but allow them to come together and live together as a family. Thus, in the interest of justice and in view of the peculiar facts of the present case, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.59 dated 25.04.2008 under Sections 307, 328 and 498-A IPC registered at Police Crl. Misc. No.M-34563 of 2009 4 Station Sadar Roopnagar, District Ropar on the basis of affidavit P-2 filed by respondent No.2 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the interest of justice and to allow the parties to live together as a family. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 14.10.2010 JUDGE gurpreet