CRM No. M 34032 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 34032 of 2010 Date of decision: 27.01.2011 Nishant Sharma and others ........ Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Rohit Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Amit Rana, DAG, Haryana for the respondent - State Mr. Mandhir S Virk, Advocate for respondent No. 2 - complainant -.- 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. 173 dated 26.07.2008 under Section 498-A, 406 of Indian Penal Code, PS Sector 31, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. CRM No. M 34032 of 2010 2 The complainant is present in Court along with her counsel. Short report on behalf of respondent No. 2 has been filed in Court today. The same is taken on record. As per the said reply, the present FIR was lodged by respondent No. 2 against the present petitioners and two others namely Asha Sharma and Gorav Sharma. The quashing petition filed by Asha Sharma and Gorav Sharma was allowed by this Court. Now, the matter has been compromised between her and petitioner No. 1 (Husband). It is also stated in the reply that a divorce petition by way of mutual consent was filed by both the parties, in which, the joint statement of the parties was also recorded on 21.05.2010 (P3) before the District Judge (Family Court) Faridabad. It is also stated that Respondent No. 2 has already received a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- as permanent alimony for herself and her daughter and, as such, she does not want to pursue any criminal proceedings against the present petitioners. In the present case, the matrimonial dispute between the parties led to filing of the present FIR. Now, the said dispute has been resolved amicably and complainant has no objection if 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:- “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 CRM No. M 34032 of 2010 3 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 as well as reply filed by respondent No. 2, 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 petition is allowed and FIR No. 173 dated 26.07.2008 under Section 498-A, 406 of Indian Penal Code, PS Sector CRM No. M 34032 of 2010 4 31, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising out the same are hereby quashed qua the present petitioners. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 27.01.2011 mohan