IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-29850 of 2009 (O/M). Date of Decision : November 19, 2009. Sunil Kumar ...... Petitioner(s). Versus. State of Punjab, and others. ..... Respondent(s). CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. P.K. Ganga, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. A.S. Rai, A.A.G. Punjab, for the respondent No. 1-State. Mr. R.P. Daaria, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 3. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The prayer in the present petition is for quashing of F.I.R. No. 89 dated 29.04.2009 under Sections 376/506 I.P.C., Police Station Sadar Abohar, District Ferozepur, (Annexure-P-1), and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of a compromise dated 09.05.2009 (Annexure-P-2). Counsel for the petitioner contends that initially an F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner at the behest of respondent No. 2-Maya Devi. During the pendency of the said F.I.R., with the intervention of the relatives, friends and panchayat, the matter was amicably resolved and a compromise was effected between the parties. Copy of the compromise is Annexure-P-2. Thereafter, a panchayatnama was also executed, which is Annexure-P-3 and on the basis of the said panchayatnama, statements dated 09.05.2009 were Criminal Misc. No. M-29850 of 2009 (O/M). given to the police by respondent No. 2-Maya Devi daughter of Baldev Kumar-complainant, her father Baldev Kumar son of Mani Ram and Leela Devi w/o Mani Ram (Annexures-P-4 to P-6). He on the basis of these submits, that the matter having been amicably resolved and there being no dispute, as of now, between the parties and the complainant and her father, mother and relatives do not want to press the allegations against the petitioner, the present F.I.R. and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom be quashed. Affidavit of Baldev Kumar son of Mani Ram (father of the prosecutrix) as also Smt. Roshni w/o Baldev Kumar (mother of the prosecutrix), have been placed on record. Counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 on the basis of said affidavits submits, that in the light of the compromise, father, mother of the complainant as also the complainant Maya Devi daughter of Baldev Kumar have no objection to the quashing of the F.I.R. in question and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Respondent No. 2-Maya Devi, respondent No. 3-Roshni-mother of Maya Devi and Baldev Kumar-father of Maya Devi, are present in the Court and have been identified by their counsel and also by H.C. Balwinder Singh, Police Station Sadar Abohar, District Ferozepur. They submit that a compromise dated 09.05.2009, has indeed been entered into between the parties, copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure-P-2. They also admit the factum of panchayatnama (Annexure-P-4) as also the statements, they had given to the police, which are dated 09.05.2009 and have been placed on record as Annexure-P-4 to Annexure-P-6. They categorically state one by one that in the light of the compromise dated -2- Criminal Misc. No. M-29850 of 2009 (O/M). 09.05.2009 (Annexure-P-2), entered into between the parties, they do not want to press the allegations against the petitioner and, therefore, have not objection to the quashing of the F.I.R. in question and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. H.C. Balwinder Singh also states that a compromise has been entered into between the parties. In view of the above, the matter having been amicably resolved and there being no dispute, as of now, pending between the parties and the complainant, her father and mother, do not want to press the allegations against the petitioner and have no objection to the quashing of the said F.I.R. and all consequential proceedings, the interest of justice would be duly served by allowing the present petition. This Court has in the case of Surinder Kamboj and others Versus State of Punjab and another, 2008 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal), 21, in the similar facts and circumstances, quashed the F.I.R. and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. Reliance can be made upon the Larger Bench Judgment of this Court in the case Kulwinder 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 amity and reduces friction, then it truly is “finest hour of justice”. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial -3- Criminal Misc. No. M-29850 of 2009 (O/M). 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, F.I.R. No. 89 dated 29.04.2009 under Sections 376/506 I.P.C., Police Station Sadar Abohar, District Ferozepur, and all other consequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE November 19, 2009. sjks. -4-