CRM No. M 36194 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 36194 of 2010 Date of decision: 02.02.2011 Neena Rani another ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. M S Sidhu, Advocate for for the petitioners Ms Gurveen H Singh, Addl. A G, Punjab for the respondent - State Respondent No. 2 – complainant in person -.- 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 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 179 dated 30.08.2001 under Section 406, 498A IPC, P S Basti Jodhewal, District Ludhiana which was got registered by respondents No. 2 against petitioner No. 2 (who is husband of petitioner No. 1) on the basis of the compromise dated 31.07.2007 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same is placed on record as Annexure P-2. Respondent No. 2 - Ram Pal as well as his daughter - Neena Rani (petitioner No. 1) are present in Court today. CRM No. M 36194 of 2010 2 Vide order dated 14.12.2010, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court on 24.12.2010 and the trial Court was also directed to record a finding whether the parties have arrived at volunteered compromise or not. In pursuance thereto, vide letter dated 12.02.2011, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana has submitted his report. As per the said report, volunteered compromise has been effected between the parties with their free consent. It is also stated that Neena Rani is now living at Ludhiana with her husband-Rakesh Kumar. There are cordial relations between Neena Rani and Rakesh Kumar. In the present case, the matrimonial dispute between petitioners No. 1 and 2, led to filing of the present FIR. Now, the matter has been amicably resolved. The daughter of the complainant is now happily residing with her husband - petitioner No. 2. Complainant as well as her daughter has no objection if the said FIR is quashed. It is pointed out by the learned State Counsel that petitioner No. 2 is a proclaimed offender. The matter has been compromised. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney vs. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others reported as (1980) 1 SCC 63, held that:- “29. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320 (9) of the Cr.P.C. or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.” While relying upon the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, this Court in the case of Jobanjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and others (Crl. M No. 10033 of 2009, decided on 29.07.2009) quashed the proceedings CRM No. M 36194 of 2010 3 declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender by observing as under:- “Keeping in view the enunciation of law as referred to above and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case, once the matter has been compromised between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the prosecution. Accordingly, order dated 23.12.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar (Annexure P-3) declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender, FIR No. 38 dated 05.07.2000, registered at Police Station Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar, under Sections 323, 325, 341, 148, 149 IPOC (Annexure P1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner. Similar view by was also held by this Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab and another (CRM M 1238 of 2007, decided on 29.01.2007). Taking into account the fact that the dispute was a matrimonial dispute also coupled with the fact that the matter had been compromised, this Court in the cases of Sarbjit Singh and others v State of Punjab and another (CRM M 52033 of 2007, decided on 27.01.2009), Pushpa Rani v. State of Punjab and another (CRM M 30341 of 2008, decided on 12.01.2010) and Sandeep Singh Brar and others v. State of Punjab and others (CRM M 28857 of 2008, decided on 12.02.2009) quashed the FIR even though the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender as all the disputes had been settled by way of compromise. 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:- CRM No. M 36194 of 2010 4 “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 compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. Complainant as well as her daughter have no objection if the said FIR is quashed. Moreover, both the petitioners are happily residing together as husband and wife. Taking into account the allegations, compromise dated CRM No. M 36194 of 2010 5 31.07.2007 as well as report of the trial Court verifying the genuineness of the said compromise, 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 settled proposition of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 179 dated 30.08.3001 under Section 406, 498A IPC, P S Basti Jodhewal, District Ludhiana and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed qua petitioner No. 2. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 02.02.2011 mohan CRM No. M 36194 of 2010 6