CRM No. M 25702 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 25702 of 2010 Date of decision: 14.10.2010 Bhupinder Singh and another ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. P K Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State Mr. Surjit Singh Swaich, Advocate for respondent No. 2 -.- 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) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of complaint No. 310 dated 05.05.1999 (Annexure P1) and the conviction order dated 30.05.2009 (Annexure P-2), whereby, petitioner No. 1 - husband and his mother have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each with fine of `500/- each for offence punishable unde Section 406 of Indian Penal Code and further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a CRM No. M 25702 of 2010 2 period of one year each with fine of `1000/- each for an offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and order dated 25.08.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib dismissing the application filed under Section 320 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking permission to compound the offence. At the time of issuing of notice of motion, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that during the pendency of the appeal, the complainant-wife and the petitioners-accused have entered into a compromise and thereby settling their matrimonial dispute. Complainant-Balbir Kaur along with her counsel is present in court today. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has filed reply by way of affidavit of Balbir Kaur wife of Bhpinder Singh stating therein that the matter has been compromised and she has no objection if the complaint and conviction order is quashed. The Apex Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 910 while quashing the FIR and all proceedings arising out of the same held that the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. In that case also, the petitioners were convicted under Section 498-A IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment of 18 months. An appeal was filed against the conviction order and during the pendency of the appeal, the parties had settled their differences. However, they filed petition before the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the complaint as well as conviction order on account of the CRM No. M 25702 of 2010 3 compromise. The High Court dismissed the same. Aggrieved, they challenged the same before the Apex Court. The Apex Court accepted the compromise and quashed the FIR and all the proceedings arising out of the same as well as order of conviction. This Court in the case of Sukhwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 991, who relying upon the judgement of Khursheed and another v. State of U.P. and another, 2007 (4) RCR (Criminal) 495 allowed the petitioners to compound the offence under Section 452 IPC during the pendency of the appeal. 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.” In view of the settled proposition of law and in view of the fact that the parties have compromised the matter, it would be in the interest of justice to accept the compromise and to allow the parties to live amicably CRM No. M 25702 of 2010 4 which shall reduce the friction in the society and promote peace and harmony. In view of the settled proposition of law, the parties are allowed to compound the offences. Accordingly, the parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Court where the appeal is pending. Thereafter, the Appellate Court shall pass appropriate orders in the light of permission having granted by this Court to the parties to compound the offence. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge October 14, 2010 mohan