IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-22270 of 2009 (O/M). Date of Decision : August 13, 2009. Sunita Sharma widow of Late Sanjiv Dutta resident of Ward No. 12, Mehndipur, Tehsil Balachaur, District Nawanshahr (now S.B.S. Nagar), Punjab. .... Petitioner . Versus. State of Punjab,and another. .... Respondents . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. R.K. Bansal, Advocate, for Mr. R.S. Bains, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, A.A.G. Punjab, for the respondent. Mr. Mohinder Kumar, Advocate, for the respondent No. 2 AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). Notice of motion. On asking of the Court, Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, A.A.G. Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State. Mr. Mohinder Kumar, Advocate, puts in appearance and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. An affidavit has been filed in the Court in response to the present petition, which is taken on record The present petition has been filed for quashing of complaint No. 258-C/1 of 2006 dated 28.09.2006 under Section 302,120-B, 34 I.P.C. Crl. Misc. No. M-22270 of 2009. (Annexure-P-1), and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom in view of compromise arrived at between the parties, proof whereof is affidavit dated 03.07.2009 of the complainant (Annexure-P-6). Counsel for the petitioner contends that initially F.I.R. No. 302, 120-B, 34 I.P.C. registered at Police Station Pojewal, District Nawanshahr, was registered against the petitioner. On investigation, a cancellation report was submitted by the Investigation Agency, wherein on a protest petition filed by respondent No. 2-complainant, the said was treated as a complaint, which was numbered as 258-C/1 of 2006, dated 28.09.2009. Pursuant thereto, summoning order dated 13.07.2007 (Annexure-P-2) was passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balachaur. He submits that now after going through the matter in detail and having consulted certain doctors and experts in the field of H.I.V., the respondent No. 2-complainant has come to know and is satisfied that her brother was infected with H.I.V. much before the marriage took place between brother of respondent No. 2 and husband of petitioner. The only doubt, which respondent No. 2- complainant had was that the petitioner had injected H.I.V. Virus in the blood of her brother, leading to his death. That position having been cleared on medical grounds, a compromise has been entered into between the parties with the efforts of relatives, friends and well-wishers and now the parties have decided to settle the dispute once for all and move forward as friends in life. Counsel for the respondent No. 2-complainant accepts the contention as raised by counsel for the petitioner and further states that affidavit, which has been filed by respondent No. 2 supports the contention which has been raised by counsel for the petitioner. He further states that -2- Crl. Misc. No. M-22270 of 2009. respondent No. 2-complainant in the light of clearing up of the misunderstanding and in the light of compromise, which has been entered into between the parties, leading to amicable settlement of dispute, does not further want to further pursue the matter and has no objection, if the complaint in question and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. Smt. Navdeep Dutta, daughter of Sh. Inder Sain, is present in the Court (as has been identified by her counsel), and on being enquired about the factum of compromise, she accepts the same. She further states that misgivings and misunderstandings between her and petitioner having been resolved, she does not want to pursue the matter and has no objection, if the complaint be quashed alongwith all consequential proceedings. In view of the above position and the statement of respondent No. -2/complainant and the affidavit, which has been filed in the Court today, it would be for the betterment of both the parties where misgivings and misunderstandings having been resolved and having realised that it was a mistake on the part of respondent No. 2-complainant to file a protest petition and having verified the medical position from doctors and experts in the filed of H.I.V., no useful purpose would be served by further putting both the parties to litigation and prolong the agony. In view of the compromise having been entered into between the parties, the likelihood of the trial ending in conviction is bleak and thus, force the parties to litigate because a case is pending before the Court would be misuse of process of law. Larger Bench Judgment of this Court in the case Kulvinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another 2007(3) R.C.R. -3- Crl. Misc. No. M-22270 of 2009. (Criminal) 1052, while discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise, by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non-compoundable offences, has held as under :- “28. 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 reduces friction, then it truly is “finest hour of justice”. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation. 29. 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.” -4- Crl. Misc. No. M-22270 of 2009. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, since the parties have amicably settled the matter, which is otherwise in the interest of justice and appears to have been effected to promote peace and harmony amongst the parties, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned complaint No. 258-C/1 of 2006 dated 28.09.2006 under Section 302,120-B, 34 I.P.C.(Annexure-P-1), and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE August 13,2009. sjks. -5-