1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 27969-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 7.10.2009 *** Amit Kapoor & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. G.P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Heard. Notice of motion to the respondents. At this stage, Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Sr. DAG Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the State while Mr. Mayanak Raghav, Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.3-complainant and filed the reply on her behalf, which is taken on record. Through the instant petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No. 25 dated 31.1.2009, under Sections 498-A, 406 of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Palam Vihar, Gurgaon. Petitioner No.1 is the husband of complainant-respondent No.2, while petitioners No.2 to 4 are father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in- law respectively. Although the quashing has been sought initially on various grounds, but learned counsel for the petitioners by filing a separate application, has withdrawn the allegations leveled either against the complainant or her counsel. Now it has been contended that on account of strained relations between the married couple, who were married on 1.6.2005, the instant FIR was got registered by respondent No.3 and now with the intervention of respectables as well as counselling attended by the parties before the 2 Mediation Cell, Family Court, Dwarka where a divorce petition was going on between the parties, the matter has been settled and the married couple has decided to part their way, on certain terms and conditions as laid down in Annexure P-2 i.e. the order of Mediation Cell, including the withdrawal of all the cases pending between the parties. It has further been pointed out that acting upon the compromise, the couple has taken divorce from each other by way of mutual consent vide judgment and decree (Annexure P-3). The respondent No.3-complainant has been paid whole of the amount, as undertaken during compromise, by petitioner No.1. In the reply/ affidavit filed by respondent No.3-complainant, receipt of an amount of Rs.9 lacs, vide separate demand draft and Manager's Cheque, has been admitted and the complainant has asserted her no objection in quashing of the impugned FIR, while authenticating the compromise. By now it is fully settled that the High Court in exercise of inherent powers can quash the proceedings if it finds that allowing of any such proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court or that ends of justice require that the proceedings be quashed. In the case of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswami, AIR 1977 SC 1489, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the ends of justice are higher than ends of mere law, though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the legislature yet the Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In the case of Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya and others 1980(1) SCC 63, the essence of compromise has been summed up in following words:- “ The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.” The Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulvinder 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, by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non- compoundable offence(s) has held as under:- 3 “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.” In the instant case, as emerges from record, the parties have mutually settled their dispute and have purchased peace for each other and have decided to part their ways by taking divorce. Taking into account these facts, this Court is of the considered view that continuance of such a prosecution is nothing but an exercise in futility and sheer wastage of time of Court. Therefore, considering the aspect of settlement having arrived at between the parties, it is a fit case where interference of this Court in 4 exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned FIR and all other consequent proceedings thereto are quashed. ` (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE October 7,2009 Jiten