IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-24165 of 2009 (O/M). Date of Decision : September 23, 2009. Pardeep Kumar ...... Petitioner . Versus. State of Punjab, and others. ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. K.S. Dhillon, Advocate, for the petitioner . Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, A.A.G. Punjab, for the respondent No. 1-State. Mr. Avtar Singh Khinda, Advocate, for the respondents No. 2 and 3. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The present petition has been filed for quashing of F.I.R. No. 7, dated 09.01.2007, under Section 406, 498-A I.P.C. and Section 31 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, Police Station Division No. 5, Jalandhar, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of a compromise dated 14.06.2009 (Annexure-P-2), which has been entered into between the parties. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the present petition has been filed by the husband of respondent No. 2-Neetu, who is daughter of Ved Parkash-complainant. He further contends that the matter has been amicably resolved and now Pardeep Kumar-petitioner and Neetu-respondent No. 2 are residing together as husband and wife. He submits that there are two children out of their wedlock and in the interest of family and children, the Criminal Misc. No. M-24165 of 2009. matter has been amicably resolved with the intervention of relatives, common friends and respectables. In view of settlement of the dispute, which was matrimonial in nature, counsel for the petitioner prays for quashing of the F.I.R. in question and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. An affidavit of Neetu wife of Pardeep Kumar, daughter of Ved Parkash has been filed in the Court today, which is taken on record. In the said affidavit, it has been stated by her that the matter has been amicably resolved and now there is no dispute pending between them. It has further been stated that she does not have any objection, if the F.I.R. in question and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed in the light of compromise dated 14.06.2009 (Annexure-P-2). Neetu wife of Pardeep Kumar daughter of Ved Parkash is present in the Court, as has been identified by counsel for respondent No. 2 and Sub Inspector Roor Singh, Police Station Division No. 5, Jalandhar. She states that in the light of compromise dated 14.06.2009 (Annexure-P-2), she does not want to further proceed in the matter and she has no objection, if the F.I.R. in question and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. She has further stated that now she is residing with the petitioner Pardeep Kumar alongwith children at her matrimonial house and, therefore, the matter is fully settled with no grudges left out. In view of the fact that the matter has been amicably settled and the statement as has been made by respondent No. 2 Neetu as also the affidavit having been filed in the Court, which accepts the factum of compromise as also there being no objection on behalf of respondent No. 2 to the quashing of the F.I.R. in question and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, it would be in -2- Criminal Misc. No. M-24165 of 2009. the interest of justice that the F.I.R. in question and all 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 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.” -3- Criminal Misc. No. M-24165 of 2009. 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. 7, dated 09.01.2007, under Section 406, 498-A I.P.C. Section 31 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, Police Station Division No. 5, Jalandhar, and all other consequent proceedings arising there from are quashed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE September 23, 2009. sjks. -4-