CRM M 18936 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- Date of decision: 05.04.2011 1. CRM M 18936 of 2010 Nitin Yadav ........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) 2. CRM M 21537 of 2010 Assa Ram Yadav and others ........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Rose Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. J S Brar, DAG, Punjab Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate for the complainant-respondent No. 2 -.- 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 18936 of 2010 2 These petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 364 dated 09.05.2008 under Section 498-A, 406, 34 IPC, Police Station Sadar, Hisar which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. In CRM M 18936 of 2010, petitioner (Nitin Yadav) is the husband of complainant/respondent No. 2, whereas, in CRM M 21537 of 2010, petitioner No. 1 (Assa Ram Yadav), petitioner No. 2 (Neeraj Yadav) and petitioner No. 3 (Neelam Yadav) are the father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law , respectively, of the complainant-respondent No. 2. Complainant-Rita Yadav is present in Court along with her counsel and has filed her affidavit, stating therein, that on 06.06.2010, a compromise has been arrived at between her and her husband, whereby, it has been decided by them to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent by filing a petition under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court subject to payment of Rs.5,50,000/- towards full and final settlement of her all claims. In the compromise, it is specifically stated that the complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed. In the present case, the matrimonial dispute led to filing of the said FIR. Now, the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties and they have decided to live apart for ever and the complainant has no objection is the said FIR is quashed. 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 M 18936 of 2010 3 “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 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 CRM M 18936 of 2010 4 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. Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed and FIR No. 364 dated 09.05.2008 under Section 498-A, 406, 34 IPC, Police Station Sadar, Hisar and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. Photocopy of the order be placed on the connected file. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 05.04.2011 mohan