CRM No. M 38057 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 38057 of 2010 Date of decision: 31.01.2011 Jakir and others ........Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Sidrath Sarup, DAG, Haryana for the respondent - State Mr. Jasmer Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2 and 3 -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 60 dated 19.02.2010 under Sections 363, 366, 506, 376 (2) (G) of Indian Penal Code, P S Sector 55, District Faridabad (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 17.12.2010 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-6. CRM No. M 38057 of 2010 2 Respondent No. 2-Idu, who is complainant and his daughter respondent No. 3- Farmina are present in Court today. Affidavit of respondents No. 2 and 3 have also been filed. The same are taken on record. As per the affidavits, complainant as well as her daughter have no objection if the said FIR is quashed. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that earlier respondent No. 3 and her husband petitioner herein filed CRM M 5968 of 2010 before this Court, seeking directions to the official respondents to protect their life and liberty. The same was disposed of with direction to the Superintendent of Police to look into the allegations, contained in the petition, and take necessary action if the same are found to be correct and true in accordance with law. From the above, it is amply clear that Section 376 IPC is not made out against petitioner No.1 as respondent No. 3 herself got married with petitioner No. 1 and now, she has also obtained divorce from petitioner No. 1. Copy of the talaqnama is placed on record as Annexure P7. Moreover, the complainant/respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 do not wish to pursue the said FIR. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another-2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has observed as under:- “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 reduced friction, then it truly is finest hour of justice. Disputes which have their CRM No. M 38057 of 2010 3 genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the court exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.” The Apex Court in the case of 'Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:- “6. We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainant as well as her daughter have no objection if the said FIR is quashed. Taking into account the fact that offence as alleged is not made out, compromise dated 17.12.2010 as well as affidavits of the complainant and her daughter, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the above said settled proposition of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 60 CRM No. M 38057 of 2010 4 dated 19.02.2010 under Sections 363, 366, 506, 376 (2) (G) of Indian Penal Code, P S Sector 55, District Faridabad (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising out the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 31.01.2011 mohan