IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-6939 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 07.09.2009 Sukhwinder Singh ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Punjab and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Vijay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Gurcharan Singh Bains, Advocate, for respondent No.2. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. The present petition is for quashing of FIR No.458 dated 4.12.2008 under Sections 356/379 IPC registered at Police Station Tripari Patiala and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise which has been entered into between the parties. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the present FIR came to be recorded on the basis of a misunderstanding by the complainant. He contends that in the light of the affidavit dated 25.2.2009 (Annexure P-2) given by the complainant, the present FIR may be quashed. Counsel for respondent No.2, has filed reply on behalf of complainant-Smt.Rinsa Kumari wife of Parveen Kumar. The complainant- respondent No.2, who is present in Court and identified by her counsel and also by Head Constable Jagga Police Station Tripari, Patiala, states that she Crl.Misc.No.M-6939 of 2009 -2- has no objection to the quashing of the FIR as it has been decided amicably that the dispute should come to an end and that she does not want to pursue her allegations against the petitioner as the misunderstanding on the basis of which the FIR was lodged has been sorted out. Smt.Rinsa Kumari wife of Parveen Kumar states that the FIR was got recorded by her against unknown persons and under a bonafide misunderstanding but now the same having been ironed out, she does not want to further pursue the matter. Counsel for the State in the light of the statement given by the complainant, also states that he does not have any objection if the FIR in question is quashed. I have heard counsel for the parties. A Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, while discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non-compoundable offence(s), 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 Crl.Misc.No.M-6939 of 2009 -3- 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.” 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 FIR No.458 dated 4.12.2008 under Sections 356/379 IPC registered at Police Station Tripari Patiala and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. September 07, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE