CRM M 34377 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- Date of decision: 06.04.2011 1. CRM M 34377 of 2009 Kailash Tiwari ........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) 2. CRM M 8911 of 2011 Pardeep Tiwari and others ........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. J S Brar, DAG, Punjab Mr. Rahul Sharma, 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) Both the aforesaid petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the same arise out of the same FIR. CRM M 34377 of 2009 2 These petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.79 dated 26.04.2007 under Section 406, 498-A IPC, Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 09.03.2011 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2 in CRM M 8911 of 2011. In CRM M 34377 of 2009, petitioner (Kailash Tiwari) is father in law, whereas, in CRM M 8911 of 2011, petitioner No. 1 (Pardeep Tiwari), petitioner No. 2 (Ashok Kumar Tiwari) and petitioner No. 3 (Champa Devi) are the husband, brother-in-law (Jeth) and mother-in-law of the complainant. In the present case, the matrimonial dispute led to filing of the said FIR. Now, the matter has been amicably resolved and the complainant has no objection, if the said FIR is quashed. Complainant - Reena Pandey is present in Court along with her counsel and has filed her affidavit, stating therein, that with the intervention of the respectables, the matter has been compromised and she does not want to pursue any proceedings against the petitioners. 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, CRM M 34377 of 2009 3 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 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 as well as 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. CRM M 34377 of 2009 4 Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed and FIR No.79 dated 26.04.2007 under Section 406, 498-A IPC, Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. Copy of the order be placed on the connected file. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 06.04.2011 mohan