CRM No. M 20890 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 20890 of 2010 Date of decision: 22.07.2010 Jagmohan Singh etc. ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: By order -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This petition arises out of a communication bearing No.13515, dated 3rd September, 2009, sent by the District & Sessions Judge, Rupnagar to the Registry of this Court. Vide the aforesaid letter, the District and Sessions Judge, Rupnagar has intimated that criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.124 dated 18.08.1999, under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, PS Kharar, title as “State v. Jagmohan Singh”, Challan No.325 dated 20.9.2009, were pending trial before JMIC, Kharar and the matter was placed before the State Level Lok Adalat at Ropar on 07.01.2006 in the presence of Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.S. Bedi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Viney Mittal, whereupon the complainant in aforesaid FIR entered into a compromise with the accused and in terms CRM No. M 20890 of 2010 2 thereof, the statements of the parties were recorded. Thereafter, vide the zimni order dated 08.01.2006 passed by the trial Court, the JMIC directed the office of the Lok Adalat to transmit the file to the High Court for suitable orders. Now, vide the aforesaid letter, the D&SJ has explained the delay in sending the trial Court file to this Court which was due to the mischief of the Criminal Ahlmad attached to the Court of JMIC who did not send the trial Court file to this Court, for which lapse, the said Ahlmad has been dismissed from service. The case has now been listed today before this Court for passing appropriate orders. Notice to Advocate General, Punjab. On the asking of Court, Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice. On perusing the file, it has come to the notice that on 07.01.2006, the learned JMIC had recorded the statements of complainant Baljot Kaur daughter of Mohinder Singh and accused, namely, Jagmohan Singh and Harpreet Singh, which are in consonance with each other, wherein they have stated that they have entered into a compromise and accused-Jagmohan Singh has paid a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- to the complainant Baljot Kaur towards full and final settlement of her all claims. Complainant-Baljot Kaur has also stated that with the intervention of the respectables, she has compromised matter and do not want to proceed against the accused. The parties to the dispute have also obtained divorce from each other through a court of competent jurisdiction. CRM No. M 20890 of 2010 3 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 observed as under:- “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 reduced 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 exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.” The Apex Court in the case of 'Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:- “6. We need to emphasize 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.” The present dispute arises out of matrimonial dispute. The CRM No. M 20890 of 2010 4 same has been compromised between the parties. As per the statement of complainant-Baljot Kaur recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kharar on 07.01.2006, the complainant do not want to proceed against the accused as she has received a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- towards full and final payment of her claims. Taking into account the allegations, the statement of the complainant and the matter being totally personal in nature, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the above settled proposition of law. In view of the circumstances explained above, and the fact that the parties have stated on oath before the State Level Lok Adalat held at Ropar, that they have resolved their inter-se dispute and have entered into a compromise, the aforesaid FIR and consequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. However, the parties shall be bound by their statements, referred to above. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. However, in the fact of the present case, copy of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 22.07.2010 mohan