IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : August 11, 2009. Criminal Misc. No. M-16232 of 2009 (O/M). Surinder Kaur alias Chhindi, wife of Mohan Singh, and another. ...... Petitioners . Versus. State of Punjab, and another. ..... Respondents . Criminal Misc. No. M-21857 of 2009 (O/M). Sandeep Singh alias Deepa ....... Petitioner. Versus. State of Punjab, and another ...... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. C.L. Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners (in both the cases). Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, A.A.G. Punjab, for the respondent-State. Mrs. Rahish Pahwa Dudeja, Advocate, for the respondent No. 2-complainant (in both the cases). AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). By this order, I propose to dispose of two petitions i.e. Crl. Misc. No. M-16232 of 2009 Surinder Kaur alias Chhindi, and another Versus State of Punjab, and another, and Crl. Misc. No. M-21857 of 2009 Sandeep Singh @ Deepa Versus State of Punjab, and another. Counsel for the petitioners states that one of the co-accused namely Mohan Singh-petitioner No. 2 in Crl. Misc. No. M-16232 of 2009 Criminal Misc. Nos. M-16232 and M-21857 of 2009. has since expired, therefore, petition qua petitioner No. 2 has been rendered infructuous. Ordered accordingly. The prayer in the abovementioned petitions is for quashing of F.I.R. No. 139 dated 23.09.2008 under Section 363/366-A/120-B I.P.C. registered at Police Station Sidhwan Bet, District Ludhiana, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromises entered into between the parties. Counsel for the petitioners contends that in Crl. Misc. No. M- 16232 of 2009, the compromise is dated 06.06.2009 (Annexure-P-2) and in Crl. Misc. No. M-21857of 2009, the compromise is dated 27.07.2009, which is filed in the Court today. On the basis of these compromises, counsel for the petitioners contends that the F.I.R. in the present case may be quashed as the purpose for amicably settle the dispute, which was primarily based on a misunderstanding between the parties and now with the intervention of respectables, relatives and family friends and keeping in view the harmonious relations between both the parties and being co-villagers, the dispute has been resolved and the parties have agreed to compromise the matter amicably. Reply on behalf of complainant-respondent No. 2 has been filed in the Court. The factum of compromise between the parties has been admitted in both the cases by complainant-respondent No. 2. The complainant-respondent No. 2 is present in the Court (as identified by his counsel), who has stated on being questioned by the Court that the dispute, which has arisen between the parties was primarily because of some -2- Criminal Misc. Nos. M-16232 and M-21857 of 2009. misunderstanding, which stands resolved. He further stated that he does not want to pursue the matter any further and prosecute the petitioners. In view of the above, the parties having resolved the dispute amicably, which primarily was based on misunderstanding and the parties having entered into a compromise, copy whereof has been placed on record, no useful purpose would be served by further proceeding with the F.I.R., which was recorded on the basis of statement given by the complainant- respondent No. 2, who has come forth in this Court and stated that he does not want to pursue the matter because of clearance of misunderstanding between the parties. Perusal of the record further shows that the complainant and the petitioners are co-villagers. In case the dispute is resolved amicably between the parties, which would have led to flare up of the dispute, leading to unrest between the parties and village, the best thing which has happened in the present case is the settlement of dispute with clearance of the misunderstanding. Keeping this in view, the F.I.R. in question deserves to be quashed. Reliance can be made upon the Larger Bench Judgment of this Court in the case Kulvinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another 2007(3) R.C.R. (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 offences, 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 -3- Criminal Misc. Nos. M-16232 and M-21857 of 2009. 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.” Therefore, in view of the discussion above, since the parties have amicably settled the matter, which is otherwise in the interest of justice and appears to have been effected to promote peace and harmony amongst the parties, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned F.I.R. No. 139 dated 23.09.2008 under Section 363/366-A/120-B I.P.C. registered at Police Station Sidhwan Bet, District Ludhiana, and all other consequent proceedings arising there from are quashed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE August 11, 2009. sjks. -4-