IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-34055 of 2010 Date of Decision:21.4.2011 Gaurav Mangla and another .... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Peeush Gagneja, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sidharth Sarup, D.A.G. Haryana. Mr. Rajiv Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.242 dated 24.5.2009 under Sections 406/498- A/342/323/506 IPC Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The FIR in question was got registered by respondent No.2. However, the matter has been compromised due to the intervention of the respectables of the family. Order dated 16.8.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by ASJ/Special Judge (NDPS) Outer Distt Rohini Courts Delhi has already been placed on record to this effect. The parties are present in the Court along with their respective counsel. Respondent No.2, who is present in the Court, got her statement recorded submitting therein that the matter has been compromised. It is further stated that today she has received a draft bearing No.041468 CRM M-34055 of 2010 -2- amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- in pursuance to the order dated 16.3.2011. She has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed subject to petitioner No.1 complying with the terms of the order dated 16.8.2010 (Annexure P-2). She also undertakes to comply with the terms and conditions of the comprmise. Petitioner No.1, who is also present in the Court, got his statement recorded stating that the matter has been compromised. In pursuance to the compromise as well as the order dated 16.3.2011, he has already paid Rs.4,00,000/- and today he has handed over a draft bearing No.041468 amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- to respondent No.2. As such, he has paid Rs.9,00,000/- out of the total agreed amount of Rs.14,00,000/-. It is further submitted that he shall pay the balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- at the time of Second motion petition filed in Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is also submitted that in case he does not sign or get his statement recorded for second motion petition filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, the amount already paid to respondent No.2 may be forfeited and he will also has no objection if the order quashing the FIR is recalled. It is further submitted that he will duly sign the second motion petition within one month from today and assist the opposite side to file the same. As per the aforesaid statements of the parties, there is no doubt that the matter has been compromised. 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 held that 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 CRM M-34055 of 2010 -3- which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is “finest hour of justice”. Disputes which have their genesis not only in matrimonial discord but others as well, such compromise deserves to be accepted. It is further held as under:- “ 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.” In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008 (4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under:- “ We need to emphasise 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.” Taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties and the statement made by respondent No.2 stating that she has no objection if the FIR is quashed, it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under CRM M-34055 of 2010 -4- Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.242 dated 24.5.2009 under Sections 406/498-A/342/323/506 IPC Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. However, the parties will be bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise as well as the statements made before this Court. 21.4.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE