Crl. Misc.No.M 18899 of 2010 # 1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAT AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc.No.M 18899 of 2010 Date of Decision:-13.12.2010 Sanjay Bhut & Ors. ......Petitioners. Versus State of Punjab & Anr. ......Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. Pankaj Satwalia, Advocate for Mr. Mahesh Gupta, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab. Mr. Devinder Singh, Advocate for Respondent no.2-Complainant. *** JASWANT SINGH, J. Prayer is under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of FIR No.421 dated 30.10.2008 under Sections 406 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code registered with Police Station Phase-I, SAS Nagar Mohali on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties and affidavit(Annexure P-2) in this regard filed by respondent no.2-complainant. As per allegations in the FIR petitioner no.1(being husband) and petitioners no.2 & 3(being parents-in-law) of the respondent no.2- complainant used to harass, maltreat her and also used to gave beatings to Crl. Misc.No.M 18899 of 2010 # 2# her on account of bring insufficient dowry articles. Subsequently both the parties arrived at a amicable settlement by way of compromise in the shape of affidavit of respondent no.2-complainant Priya dated 28.05.2010 and hence the present petition. Complainant Priya daughter of Rakesh Chander Vij is present in the court. She has stated that she has compromised the matter with the petitioner in the instant FIR and and has no objection if the aforesaid FIR and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. Statement of respondent no.2-complainant has also been separately recorded. She has undertaken to abide by the terms and conditions of the compromise deed(P2). Learned State Counsel is unable to raise any serious objection in view of the statement recorded in terms of the aforesaid compromise whereby the complainant is not willing to support the case of the prosecution. Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2003)4 SCC 675 B.S. Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Another has made it explicitly clear in para 15 of its judgment that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or effect the powers under Section 482 of the Code. A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has also held that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash an FIR disclosing the commission of non- compoundable offences. The relevant extracts read as under:- Crl. Misc.No.M 18899 of 2010 # 3# “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.” Hon'ble Apex Court in another case in J.T. 2008(9) S.C. 192 Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another while relying upon its decision in B.S. Joshi's case(supra) has also held that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of criminal proceedings and the continuance of the same after compromise between the parties would be a futile exercise. Similar views were expressed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abot v. State of Punjab 2008(4) SCC 582, the relevant extract of which is as under:- “We need to emphasise 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 Crl. Misc.No.M 18899 of 2010 # 4# realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” Keeping in view the above settled legal position and taking into account the fact that the dispute between the parties is a matrimonial dispute and that both the parties have desired to live separately in peace and harmony and carry on with their lives without any ill will or rancour by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, it is evident that it is a fit case where there is no legal impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of the FIR in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.421 dated 30.10.2008 under Sections 406 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code registered with Police Station Phase-I, SAS Nagar Mohali and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed against the petitioner. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE 13th December, 2010 Vinay