CRL.MISC. NO.49090 OF 2011 & CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M-25170 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 03, 2011 Sumith Inder Singh Chauhan .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Rohit Chandel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.D.S.Mann, Addl.A.G.,Punjab, for the State. Mr. Sapan Dhir & Mr. Amandeep Singh Gulati, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 7.8.2005 according to Sikh rites at Chandigarh. One male child born on 22.4.2009 out of this wedlock. Some misunderstanding arose between the parties, which led to filing of various litigation. Respondent No.2-wife lodged FIR No.366, dated 11.9.2009, under Sections 498A, 406 IPC at Police Station Phase I, CRL.MISC. NO.49090 OF 2011 & CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M-25170 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: Mohali against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act at Bangalore whereas respondent No.2 filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mohali. The petitioner thereafter had approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail by filing Criminal Misc. No.M-17405 of 2010. On 14.10.2010, this Court referred the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court for settlement of disputes. The parties appeared and arrived at a settlement on 5.8.2010. Both the parties agreed to withdraw their respective cases filed against each other. The parties further agreed to file a petition for divorce on the ground of mutual consent. Parties have reached for full and final settlement of disputes and the petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of `7 lacs to the wife-respondent No.2. This amount was to be paid by way of two drafts i.e. one of `3.5 lacs in the name of the minor child, Yashnoor Singh and the second draft of `3.5 lacs in favour of respondent No.2. Both the parties have already withdrawn petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 16.8.2010 and 20.8.2010 respectively. The petitioner and respondent No.2 both have filed a divorce petition on the ground of mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The same has been allowed by the District Judge, Chandigarh on 14.5.2011. The petitioner has already paid a sum of `3.5 lacs by way of bank draft to respondent No.2 at the first hearing of the mutual divorce petition. The second draft has also been handed over in the Court and as per the mutual CRL.MISC. NO.49090 OF 2011 & CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M-25170 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: understanding is to be handed over to the wife once the present FIR is quashed. The present petition stands adjourned to 13.12.2011. Now a miscellaneous application has been filed for preponing the date on the ground that expiry date of the second draft is 18.10.2011. As per the counsel, since the parties have already settled the issue and the divorce has also been granted and all other litigations have been withdrawn, it would not be useful to pend this petition till 13.12.2011. Accordingly, case for preponement and deciding the same is made out as otherwise the draft, which has been deposited with the Court, may become invalid. With the concurrence of the counsel, the matter is taken up for hearing today. Since the parties have settled the issue with the help of Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and have resolved their differences amicably, it would be futile now to allow such proceedings to continue. All the proceedings, which had been filed by the parties, have since been withdrawn. The divorce has also been granted. Notice of the petition has already been issued. Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 confirms that parties have reached a compromise and also the fact that first draft has already been received by the respondent-wife. In my view, no useful purpose would now be served by allowing these proceedings to continue. There are ample powers with this Court to quash such proceedings on the basis of compromise in view of the law laid down by this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, CRL.MISC. NO.49090 OF 2011 & CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M-25170 OF 2011 :{ 4 }: 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052. In this case, it has been held that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can not have any fetters and it can be eclipsed by any contingencies and the same cannot be made diminutive in sense and substance and cannot be a hostage to one class or category of cases. As held in this case, compromise in a modern society is the sine-qua-non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is a soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 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. The petition is accordingly allowed. FIR No.366 dated 11.9.2009, under Sections 498A, 406 IPC, registered at Police Station Phase I, Mohali, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. October 03, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE