IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-23027 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 10.09.2009 Surjit Singh and others ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Punjab and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.I.P.S.Kohli, Advocate, for respondent No.2. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioners praying for quashing of FIR No.271 dated 19.8.2005 under Sections 406, 498-A IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of a compromise which has been entered into between the parties and in acknowledgment of this fact, an affidavit dated 1.8.2009 has been filed in Court as Annexure P-1. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the present FIR had arisen out primarily on a matrimonial dispute which had occurred because of strained relations between petitioner No.5, who was the husband and respondent No.2-Harpreet Kaur, the complainant, in the present case. He contends that the wife has already got an ex parte decree of divorce against Crl.Misc.No.M-23027 of 2009 (O&M) -2- petitioner No.5-Jagpal Singh which was passed in her favour on 25.4.2007. The said order/decree has attained finality as petitioner No.5 has not challenged the same. Thereafter, a compromise has been entered into between the parties wherein the factum of divorce has been accepted whereafter all other matters relating to the matrimonial dispute stand settled. In acknowledgment of this fact, the affidavit dated 1.8.2009 (Annexure P-1) of complainant-respondent No.2 is placed on record. Counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 on the basis of the compromise and the affidavit so filed by the complainant-respondent No.2 has no objection for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. It has further been stated therein that she has no objection if the FIR in question and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. Smt.Harpreet Kaur daughter of S.Tara Singh, is present in Court and has been identified by her counsel as well as ASI Piara Lal, Police Station Tripari Patiala. She states that a compromise has been entered into between the parties and in pursuance thereto she does not want to proceed further with the FIR and she has no objection if the FIR in question and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. In the light of the statement given by the complainant- respondent No.2 in Court, counsel for the State, it being a matrimonial dispute, states that he does not have any objection to the quashing of the FIR. In view of the above, the matter being primarily a matrimonial dispute having been resolved and settled with the intervention of the Crl.Misc.No.M-23027 of 2009 (O&M) -3- relatives and friends and the parties having decided to part their ways in life amicably and in the light of the compromise entered into, it would be in the interest of justice that the FIR in question and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. A Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, while discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non-compoundable offence(s), 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 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 Crl.Misc.No.M-23027 of 2009 (O&M) -4- 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, impugned FIR No.271 dated 19.8.2005 under Sections 406, 498-A IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. September 10, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE