IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-1636 of 2008 Date of Decision:17.5.2011 Mansukh Singh Mangat .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents And CRM M-4534 of 2008 Date of Decision:17.5.2011 Inderjit Singh Mangat .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .... Respondent And CRM M-4537 of 2008 Date of Decision:17.5.2011 Baljodh Singh Mangat .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .... Respondents And CRM M-4538 of 2008 Date of Decision:17.5.2011 Sharanjit Kaur Mangat .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .... Respondent And CRM M-4540 of 2008 Date of Decision:17.5.2011 Deepinder Kaur Mangat .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. K.S. Bassi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. Sherry Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** CRM M-1636 of 2008 -2- 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) By this common order, Crl. M. Nos.M-1636, 4537, 4534, 4538 and 4540 of 2008 shall be decided together as the prayer for quashing of FIR and FIR No.79 dated 23.9.2007 under Sections 406/420/498-A IPC Police Station Bhadson, District Patiala is the same in all these cases. The marriage of daughter of the applicant namely Gursharan Kaur was solemnized with subject cited Mansukh Singh Mangat at Binder Farms Chandigarh, Zirakpur Road on 22nd December 2001, as per Anand Karaj ceremony. The above mentioned FIR was registered against the petitioners by Rajinder Kaur-complainant i.e. the mother of Gursharan Kaur. The matter was compromised between the parties during the pendency of the present petitions. In pursuance to the said compromise, this Court passed the following order on 18.4.2011: “In pursuance to the order dated 18.3.2011, the parties are present in the Court through their respective counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a draft bearing No.125493 issued by Citi Bank, N.A., Global Consumer Bank, SCO 132/133/134, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh in the name of Gursharan Kaur d/o Late Daljit Singh for an amount of Rs.16,000,00/- as agreed between the parties. The said draft be kept in the safe custody of Registrar of this Court. Respondent No.2 is present in the Court along with her son. Learned counsel for respondents CRM M-1636 of 2008 -3- No.2 has placed on record the affidavits of respondent No.2, who is the mother of the complainant, admitting the factum of compromise in all the connected petitions. It is further submitted in the said affidavit that respondent No.2 has no objection if the FIR is quashed in case the aforesaid draft in the name of her daughter namely Gursharan Kaur is given to them. It is evident that the matter has been compromised. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has expressed his apprehension that the power of attorney of the complainant-Gursharan Kaur in favour of respondent No.2 has not been embossed by the Consulate. As such, the same is not valid. However, respondent No.2 states that the complainant-Gursharan Kaur is likely to visit India in the first week of May, 2011. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned to 17.5.2011 to enable the complainant-Gursharan Kaur to be present in the Court as well as enable her to file affidavit confirming the compromise. A copy of the order be placed on all the connected files.” Today, in pursuance to the order dated 18.4.2010, complainant/respondent No.2-Rajinder Kaur as well as the daughter Gursharan Kaur are present in the Court through her counsel. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has placed on record the affidavits of the daughter of complainant namely Gursharan Kaur in all the petitions admitting the factum of compromise. As per the said affidavits, the matter has been amicably resolved and she has no objection to the quashing of FIR in question if Rs.16,000,00/- is paid to her. It is further stated in the affidavits that the amount of Rs.16,00,000/- is towards the full and CRM M-1636 of 2008 -4- final settlement towards maintenance and litigation expenses. The petitioners have already deposited the draft bearing No.125493 issued by Citi Bank, N.A., Global Consumer Bank, SCO 132/133/134, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh in the name of Gursharan Kaur d/o Late Daljit Singh for an amount of Rs.16,000,00/- before this Court on 18.4.2011. The affidavit of the complainant-respondent was placed on record on 18.4.2011 to the same effect. Thus, there is no doubt that the matter has been compromised and the said compromise is genuine. 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 held that 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 not only in matrimonial discord but others as well, such compromise deserves to be accepted. It is further held as under:- “ 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 thewide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section CRM M-1636 of 2008 -5- 320 of the Cr.P.C in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.” In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008 (4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised 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 realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” The FIR in question arises out of the matrimonial dispute. However, the marriage of Gursharan Kaur and Mansukh Singh Mangat has already been dissolved vide judgment dated 30.8.2005 passed by the Court for the 18th Judicial Circuit DuPage Country, Wheaton, Illiniois. Taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties and the affidavits of respondent No.2 as well as the daughter of respondent No.2 namely Gursharan Kaur stating that they have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed in case an amount of Rs.16,000,00/- as agreed between the parties is given to them, it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CRM M-1636 of 2008 -6- Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed and FIR No.79 dated 23.9.2007 under Sections 406/420/498-A IPC Police Station Bhadson, District Patiala and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. The said amount of Rs.16,00,000/- is towards full and final settlement. Respondent No.2 and her daughter Gursharan Kaur shall be bound by their statements in the affidavits. However, draft bearing No.125493 issued by Citi Bank, N.A., Global Consumer Bank, SCO 132/133/134, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh in the name of Gursharan Kaur d/o Late Daljit Singh for an amount of Rs.16,000,00/- placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner in pursuance to the compromise, which was thereafter kept in the safe custody of Registrar of this Court be released to respondent No.2 forthwith. A copy of this order be placed in the connected cases. 17.5.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE