IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-53891 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision:10.3.2010 Ajaypal Singh Sandhu .... Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. Navdeep Chhabra, Advocate for respondent No.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) Crl. M. No.12857 of 2010 This is an application for placing on record the compromise between the parties. Heard. The application is allowed and compromise is taken on record. Main Case The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved for quashing of FIR No.469 dated 20.08.2007 registered under Sections 498-A/406/109 IPC at Police Station Kotwali Bathinda and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The compromise is placed on record vide Crl. M. No.12857 of 2009. As per the compromise, the parties have decided to live separately and withdraw all the cases. They will also file a divorce petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. A separate statement of respondent No.2/complainant to that effect has also been recorded in the Court today. As per the statement, respondent No.2/complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed. It is further stated that the said compromise is entered into without any pressure and out of her own sweet will. 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 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.” 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 allegations arising out of matrimonial dispute. The matter has been compromised. In view of the settled proposition of law, it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.469 dated 20.08.2007 registered under Sections 498-A/406/109 IPC at Police Station Kotwali Bathinda all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. Mr. A.C. Jain, Advocate, who has been appearing earlier on behalf of respondent No.2, prays that he may be allowed to withdraw from this case. Allowed to do so. 10.3.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE