CRM No.M-22233 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-24.9.2010 Balwinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Harsh Bunger, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, DAG Punjab. Mr.Parminder P.Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Tersenessly, the facts, which need a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy raised in the present petition filed by Balwinder Singh petitioner and emanating from the record, is that his marriage was solemnized with complainant Paramjit Kaur (respondent No.2) on 20.3.2005 according to Sikh/Anand Karaj ceremony at Ropar. Having performed the marriage, the parties migrated to Australia, where they started residing as husband and wife, but no issue was born out of this wedlock. According to the complainant that after some time of the marriage, the petitioner started torturing her and demanding more dowry articles. He threatened to kill her as well. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the complainant claimed that the petitioner-accused treated her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused, vide FIR No.136 dated 25.8.2009 (Annexure P2), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 406, 494 and 498-A IPC by the police of Police Station City Rupnagar. 3. During the course of investigation, the good sense prevailed and the CRM No.M-22233 of 2010 2 matter was compromised between the parties at the intervention of respectables, friends and relatives. They have broken all the relations with each other and decided to live separately. . 4. In this manner, the petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing the FIR (Annexure P2) and all subsequent proceedings thereto on the basis of compromise, invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia, pleading that after some time of marriage, some petty disputes took place between the parties and they started residing separately from each other. They filed a petition for divorce in the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia, which was allowed. The divorce certificate is (Annexure P1). Now they do not want to prolong the litigation. In order to substantiate the validity of the compromise, the parties, vide their separately recorded statements, have stated that they have compromised the matter with the intervention of respectables, friends and relations and prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings. As per compromise deed (Annexure P3), the parties reiterated that due to some temperamental differences, they could not adjust with each other. The petitioner agreed to give total amount of Rs.7 lacs in full and final settlement regarding maintenance i.e. present, past, future and other claim of dowry articles. After receiving the same, the complainant will have no claim, right or any concern with the property of petitioner and his father. The other cases like petition under Domestic Violence Act and under section 125 Cr.PC or any other litigation against the petitioner as well as his other family members and the cases filed by the parties against each other will be withdrawn. 5. Such thus being the position on record, now the sole question that arises for determination in this petition is as to whether it would be expedient in the interest of justice to quash the criminal prosecution or not? 6. Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal CRM No.M-22233 of 2010 3 of thoughts over the entire matter, to me, justice would be sub-served if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter in this relevant connection. 7. The law of settlement of criminal disputes by virtue of compromise is not res-integra and is well settled. The clear and explicit intention of the Legislature in this regard was transformed in reality by Hon'ble Apex Court in cases Manoj Sharma v. State & Ors. 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 827; B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana 2003 (2) RCR (Crl.) 888 (SC) and Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052. 8. The crux of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is that the power under section 482 Cr.PC has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever- lasting congeniality in society and resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is adhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery if the statement is fair being free from under pressure. Meaning thereby, the High Court has unlimited power to quash the criminal proceedings, relatable to matrimonial and property disputes, on the basis of lawful settlement. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is fully attracted in the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 9. As is evident from the record that in the instant case, the parties are lawfully agreed to settle the dispute, therefore, to my mind, there is no impediment in translating the wishes of the parties into reality and to quash the criminal prosecution to set the matter at rest to enable them to live in peace and to enjoy the life and liberty in a dignified manner as guaranteed by and as contemplated in the CRM No.M-22233 of 2010 4 Constitution of India. 10. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No.136 dated 25.8.2009 (Annexure P2) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and the petitioner is discharged, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 24.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge