In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-82 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:21.3.2009 Balvir Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Sandeep Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate for the complainant-respondent No.2 with Mandeep Kaur (complainant) in person. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`C.P.C.' - for short) has been filed for quashing FIR No.260 dated 19.11.2006 (Annexure-P.1) registered at Police Station Banga, District Nawanshahr for the offences under Sections 323 and 325 Indian Penal Code (`IPC' – for short) in view of the compromise (Annexure-P.2) arrived at between the parties. The FIR (Annexure-P.1) in the case has been registered on the statement of Mandeep Kaur (respondent No.2). It has been alleged by her that on 8.11.2006 at about 7.00 p.m. her sister-in-law's husband (Nandoi) Balvir Singh (petitioner), who was residing with them along with his family had attacked her and caused injuries on her mouth and back. He threatened to kill her by showing a `Chhura'. The petitioner intended to get the complainant's share of land from her father-in-law. On raising an alarm by Cr. Misc. No.M-82 of 2009 [2] the complainant; Santosh Rani reached the spot and rescued the complainant. Thereafter, brother of the complainant got her admitted for treatment. During the fight her ear ring had also been misplaced. The complainant-Mandeep Kaur (respondent No.2) is admittedly the petitioner's wife's brothers' wife. In view of the close relationship between the parties, the matter has been amicably compromised by way of Panchayati compromise dated 22.12.2008 (Annexure-P.2). It has been stated that the complainant does not want to take any action. Besides, decision has been taken by the complainant party with her free will and without any pressure. The complainant Mandeep Kaur (respondent No.2) has also deposed affidavit (Annexure-P.3) in this regard. She is present in Court today and is identified by her counsel, who , on her instructions, has stated that she has no objection to the quashing of the FIR. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner has been declared as a proclaimed offender. Besides, he had attacked the complainant and caused injuries on her mouth and back and had even threatened to kill her by showing a `Chhura'. Therefore, the FIR is not liable to be quashed. A larger Bench of this Court in Kulvinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Cr.) 1052 (5 Judges) has held that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise. The exercise of jurisdiction to quash FIR in the matter of criminal proceedings is not limited to matrimonial cases alone and this Court has wide powers to quash criminal proceedings even in cases of non- compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Cr. Misc. No.M-82 of 2009 [3] The power undoubtedly is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. In Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582, it was emphasised 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. In the present case the parties are closely related and the dispute is in the nature of a domestic quarrel in the house of the complainant. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender vide order dated 17.4.2008 (Annexure-P.4). This Court in the case of Rajinder Singh alias Rajinder Kumar v. State of Haryana and another, 2003 (1) RCR (Cr.) 123 observed that a proclaimed offender cannot be granted indulgence, but having regard to the version of the complainant himself on oath before the Court, no purpose would be served by continuing with the proceedings. Accordingly, the proceedings against the petitioner in the said case were quashed. In the present case as well the complainant has deposed an affidavit (Annexure-P.3) wherein she has compromised the matter and has stated that she has no objection to the quashing of the FIR. Even in Court today she has reiterated the said position. The dispute is also purely personal in nature. Therefore, in the circumstances, no purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings any further. Cr. Misc. No.M-82 of 2009 [4] In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the FIR No.260 dated 19.11.2006 (Annexure-P.1) registered at Police Station Banga, District Nawanshahr for the offences under Sections 323 and 325 IPC and all consequential and subsequent proceedings including the order dated 17.4.2008 (Annexure- P.4) shall stand quashed. March 21, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*