Crl. Misc. No. M-20902 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-20902 of 2009 Date of Decision : August 17, 2009 Devinder Pal Singh Cheema son of S. Shamsher Singh Cheema and others .... Petitioners Vs. Gurpreet Singh son of S. Iqbal Singh .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH * * * Present : Mr. R.K.Trikha, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. ADS Sukhija, Advocate, for the respondent. * * * AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing of a complaint, in which they are respondents, which was filed by the complainant bearing No. 75 dated 23.10.1997 under Sections 323, 325, 452, 506, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of a compromise Crl. Misc. No. M-20902 of 2009 2 arrived at between the parties. Prayer for quashing has been made primarily on the ground that the present petition is an offshoot of a matrimonial dispute which was going on between Gurpreet Singh and Jyotbir Kaur. The matter having been amicably resolved between the parties, counsel for the petitioners contends that the present complaint deserves to be quashed in the light of the said compromise. He further submits that the FIR, which was got registered by Jyotbir Kaur against Gurpreet Singh, who is the complainant-respondent in the present case, stands quashed by this Court in Crl. Misc. No. M-20886 of 2009 titled as Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Union Territory and another vide order dated 17.08.2009. He, on this basis, prays for quashing of the complaint, which is in question in the present case. Upon notice having been issued, an affidavit has been filed in Court today, wherein the factum of compromise entered into between the parties has been admitted by Sh. Gurpreet Singh s/o late Sh. Iqbal Singh. It has further been stated that the matrimonial dispute between Gurpreet Singh and Jyotbir Kaur has been amicably settled and acted upon, therefore, he does not have any objection to the quashing of the complaint along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Mr. Gurpreet Singh is present in the Court (as has been identified by his counsel) and he states that in the light of the compromise, which has been entered into between the parties, copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure P-3, he does not want to pursue the matter any further and has no objection if all consequential proceedings arising from the complaint are quashed. Crl. Misc. No. M-20902 of 2009 3 The purpose and intent of laws, which are framed, is primarily to bring order in the society and if the members of the society amicably resolve all their disputes, the purpose of laws having been achieved, the complaint, which is a cause of concern at this stage between the parties would not be an impediment to further lead a happy life. In view of the compromise, the matter having been resolved between the parties, the present complaint deserves to be quashed and specially when the complainant himself has no objection to the quashing of the same along with all consequential proceedings. Reliance can be made upon the Larger Bench Judgment of this Court in the case Kulvinder 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-20902 of 2009 4 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, Complaint No. 75 dated 23.10.1997 under Sections 323, 325, 452, 506, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. August 17, 2009 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) pj JUDGE Crl. Misc. No. M-20902 of 2009 5