Crl. Misc. No. M-11948 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-11948 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 2.3.2010 Kuldip Singh & Ors. ..........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & Anr. ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Antarpreet Singh, Advocate for Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Sra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Ravi Malhotra, Advocate for the complainant. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The petitioners, who are Jeth (brother-in-law), Jethani (sister- in-law), Nanadoi (husband of sister-in-law), nanad (sister-in-law), husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law, respectively, of daughter of complainant- respondent No.2 have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 508 dated 3.12.2005 registered under Sections 406/498-A IPC at Police Station Nakodar, District Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 26.3.2009 (Annexure P-1). Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the matter has been compromised between the parties and moreover the daughter of complainant-respondent No.2 has also got remarried. He further contends Crl. Misc. No. M-11948 of 2009 (2) that complainant-respondent No.2 has no objection in quashing of the aforesaid FIR. Both the parties are present in Court and have been identified by their respective counsel. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 also states that complainant as well as his daughter, who are present in Court, have no objection in quashing the aforesaid FIR. Since the matter has already been compromised between the parties and the daughter of the complainant, who is the aggrieved party, has also got remarried, no purpose will be served if the case is tried because as per the compromise respondent No.2 will not support the case of the prosecution and it will be sheer wastage of precious time of this Court. It has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney Vs. Mr. Kaushalya Sawhney and others 1980 (1) SCC 63 that “the finest Hour of Justice arrives propitiously when the parties, despite following apart bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.” Relying on the views adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Five Judges Bench of this Court also observed in Kulwinder Singh Versus State of Punjab, RCR 2007 (3) 1052 that compounding of offence which are not compoundable under Section 320(9) Cr.P.C. but parties entering into compromise, this Court has the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allowing compounding of non-compoundable offences and quash the prosecution where the Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The present one is a case covered by the views observed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the judgment mentioned above and, is therefore, a fit case to quash the FIR. Crl. Misc. No. M-11948 of 2009 (3) In view of the above, FIR No. 508 dated 3.12.2005 registered under Sections 406/498-A IPC at Police Station Nakodar, District Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. March 02, 2010 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No