Crl. Misc.No.M 24806 of 2010 # 1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAT AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc.No.M 24806 of 2010 Date of Decision:-20.12.2010 Balwinder Singh & Anr. ......Petitioners. Versus Kiranpreet Kaur. ......Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. R.S. Bains, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the Respondent. *** JASWANT SINGH, J. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.PC has been filed on behalf of the parents-in-law of complainant-Kiranpreet Kaur for quashing complaint no.180 dated 16.7.2007 under Sections 498-A, 406 and Dowry Prohibition Act and summoning order dated 11.12.2009(P6). As per allegations petitioners no.1 & 2(being parents-in-law) of the respondent-complainant used to harass, maltreat and gave beatings to her on account of bringing insufficient dowry articles. Although the parents of the respondent-complainant fulfilled the demands of the petitioners even then they did not stop their activities of harassing and maltreating the Crl. Misc.No.M 24806 of 2010 # 2# respondent-complainant. As such the aforesaid FIR was registered While issuing notice of motion respondent-complainant(wife) and husband-Raj Guljinder Singh were directed to come present in the court. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions parties have caused their appearance and stated that have agreed to an amicable settlement of their matrimonial dispute, agreed to seek divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and that custody of child shall remain with the wife and visitation rights to the husband/father and child shall also visit the grand parents during holidays. It was further settled between the parties that the husband shall pay an amount of Rs.10 lacs towards full and final settlement of all claims and dispute between the parties and the said payment shall be made in equal installments. Today both husband as well as respondent-complainant(wife) are present. Their separate statements have been recorded in the court today and they have been duly identified by their respective counsel. Complainant in her statement has stated that she has received a sum of rupees five lacs by way of demand draft bearing no.746058 dated 18.12.2010 of State Bank of India, Talwar Township payable at Gurdaspur (photocopy of demand draft retained) and remaining amount of rupees five lacs shall be paid by the husband to the complainant-wife at the time of decree of divorce by way of mutual consent. She further states that she has no objection if the aforesaid complaint is quashed qua to the petitioners and that she will also withdraw the aforesaid complaint qua other accused on the next date of hearing. Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2003)4 SCC 675 B.S. Joshi & Crl. Misc.No.M 24806 of 2010 # 3# Others Vs. State of Haryana & Another has made it explicitly clear in para 15 of its judgment that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or effect the powers under Section 482 of the Code. A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has also held that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash an FIR disclosing the commission of non- compoundable offences. The relevant extracts read 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.” Hon'ble Apex Court in another case in J.T. 2008(9) S.C. 192 Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another while relying upon its decision in B.S. Joshi's case(supra) has also held that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of criminal proceedings and the continuance of the same after compromise between the parties would be a futile exercise. Similar views were expressed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abot v. State of Punjab 2008(4) SCC 582, the relevant Crl. Misc.No.M 24806 of 2010 # 4# extract of which is 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.” Keeping in view the above settled legal position and taking into account the fact that between the parties is a matrimonial dispute and that both the parties have desired to live in peace and harmony and carry on with their lives without any ill will or rancour by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, it is evident that it is a fit case where there is no legal impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of the FIR in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and complaint no.180 dated 16.7.2007 under Sections 498-A, 406 and Dowry Prohibition Act and summoning order dated 11.12.2009 and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed against the petitioners. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE 20th December, 2010 Vinay