IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-20635 of 2009 (O/M). Date of Decision : August 28, 2009. Jaswant Kaur wife of late Sh. Gurmail Singh resident of village Chhapa Tehsil and District Banala ...... Petitioner . Versus. State of Punjab, and others. ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. P.S. Punia, Advocate, for the petitioner . Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, A.A.G. Punjab, for the respondent No. 1-State. Mr. G.S. Jagpal, Advocate, for the respondents No. 2 and 3. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The present petition is for quashing of F.I.R. No. 93, dated 12.09.2008 under Sections 406, 498-A I.P.C. registered at Police Station Sudhar, District Ludhiana, on the basis of a compromise dated 10.07.2008 (Annexure-P-2), which has been entered into between the parties. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the complainant in the present complaint is Jaspal Singh s/o Mohinder Singh-respondent No. 2 and Rupinder Kaur daughter of Jaspal Singh is respondent No. 3. He further contends that the F.I.R. in question came into existence primarily because of matrimonial dispute, which has crept up between respondent No. 3-Rupinder Kaur daughter of Jaspal Singh and respondent No. 4-Harminder Singh son of the petitioner. Now, during the pendency of the F.I.R. in question, when the matter was under investigation, an agreement has been entered into between Criminal Misc. No. M-20635 of 2009. the parities and the matter has been amicably resolved. Copy of the compromise dated 10.07.2008 has been placed on record as Annexure-P-2. As per the said compromise, respondents No. 2 and 3 have no objection to the quashing of the F.I.R. in question and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom. He further submits that divorce has been obtained by respondents No. 3 and 4 and as of now, there is nothing, which would in any manner be an impediment for not proceeding for quashing of the F.I.R. in question and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise with the consent given by complainant and his daughter-respondents No. 2 and 3. On the other hand, counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 has specifically stated that respondents No. 2 and 3 have no objection to the quashing of F.I.R. in question and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom in the light of compromise, which has been placed on record as Annexure-P-2 and the said compromise has been acted upon by the respective parties. Shri Jaspal Singh son of Mohinder Singh and Rupinder Kaur daughter of Shri Jaspal Singh-respondents No. 2 and 3 respectively are present in the Court (as identified by their counsel) as also H.C. Avtar Singh, Police Station Sudhar, District Ludhiana, is also present in the Court. Both of them in one voice state that the compromise has been entered into between the parties, wherein matrimonial dispute, which was the basis for initiating proceedings against the petitioner and respondent No. 4-husband of respondent No. 3, has been amicably resolved and, therefore, they do not want to further pursue the matter. They have further stated that they have no objection, if the F.I.R. in question and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. -2- Criminal Misc. No. M-20635 of 2009. Counsel for respondent No. 1-State, in the light of compromise, which has been entered into between the parties and in the light of the statements, which have been given by complainant-Jaspal Singh/respondent No. 2 and his daughter respondent No. 3-Rupinder Kaur, also states that he has no objection, if F.I.R. in question alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. I have heard counsel for the parties and keeping in view the statements, which have been given by respondents No. 2 and 3-Jaspal Singh son of Mohinder Singh and Rupinder Kaur daughter of Jaspal Singh respectively in the Court today and further in the light of the compromise dated 10.07.2008, copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure-P-2, which according to counsel for the petitioner and respondents No. 2 and 3 acted upon by the parties, it would be in the interest of justice that the F.I.R. in question alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, so that the parties can leave the past and move forward in the present and thereafter in the future without there being any impediment and hindrance in each others life as respondent No. 3 and her husband Harminder Singh have decided to part ways and divorce has also been granted to the parties, therefore, the ends of justice would be served, if they are allowed to live happily in future. In view of the above, the present petition deserves to be allowed and the F.I.R. in question alongwith all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom be quashed. Reliance can be made upon the Larger Bench Judgment of this Court in the case Kulwinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another 2007(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1052, while discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise, by this Court in -3- Criminal Misc. No. M-20635 of 2009. exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non-compoundable offences, 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 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 F.I.R. No. 93, dated 12.09.2008 under Sections 406, 498-A I.P.C. registered at Police Station Sudhar, District Ludhiana, and all other consequential proceedings arising there from are quashed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE August 28, 2009. sjks. -4-