Crl. Misc. No.M-33375 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-33375 of 2009 Date of Decision: 01.12.2010 Smt. Bhavna Jain ....Petitioner Versus Labhu Ram Uppal ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. B.S. Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Virk, Advocate for the respondent. ***** 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) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint No.37 dated 02.08.2008 under Sections 166/500/506/34/120-B IPC and for quashing of summoning order dated 04.05.2009 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sardulgarh, District Mansa and subsequent proceedings pending therein. The matter was duly compromised before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, which is evident from the order dated 20.09.2010 passed by the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The said compromise has been duly signed by the parties, as well as, the learned counsel appearing for the parties concerned. Learned counsel for the respondent stated at bar that he has instructions to state that the respondent has no objection, if the complaint Crl. Misc. No.M-33375 of 2009 2 and the summoning order is quashed in view of the compromise effected between the parties before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. 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 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 vs. 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 Crl. Misc. No.M-33375 of 2009 3 litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” The matter is personal in nature. The same has been compromised. In view of the settled position of law, it would be just and proper to quash the FIR for peace, harmony and thus allow the parties to move on in life. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and complaint No.37 dated 02.08.2008 under Sections 166/500/506/34/120-B IPC, summoning order dated 04.05.2009 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sardulgarh, District Mansa and subsequent proceedings pending therein are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 01.12.2010 JUDGE gurpreet