1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 48873-M of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.11.2008 *** Amarjit Singh Bhatia .. Petitioner Vs. Smt. Surinder Kaur & Anr. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR. Present:- Mr. I.P.S. Doabia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG Haryana. Mr. Abhinav Bajaj, Advocate for respondent No.1. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Crl. Misc. No. 52111 of 2008 Respondent No.1 has filed the instant Crl. Misc. for early hearing/ disposal of the petition on the basis of compromise entered between the parties. Affidavits of respondent No.1 and that of petitioner are also annexed with the petition. Notice of the application has been accepted by Mr. I.P.S. Doabia, Advocate for the petitioner as well as by Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG Haryana, on behalf of the State. For the reasons mentioned in the Crl. Misc. Application, the same is allowed and the main petition is taken up on Board for hearing today itself. Crl. Misc. No. 48873-M of 2005 Through the instant petition, the petitioner-husband is seeking quashing of FIR No. 107 dated 1.4.2004, registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 and 506 IPC, got registered by respondent No.1 against him at Police Station Faridabad and also the consequent proceedings thereto. It is apt to mention here that the instant petition was filed by 2 raising various grounds, inter alia, that no offence as alleged is made out against the petitioner; that the continuance of prosecution against the petitioner is abuse of process of law; that the proceedings have been launched just to harass the petitioner. This Court vide order dated 22.3.2006 admitted the petitioner for regular hearing. But now it has been contended that on account of strained relations between the married couple, the instant FIR was got registered by respondent No.1 and now with the intervention of respectables, the matter has been settled and the misunderstandings have been cleared. Respondent No.1 Smt. Surinder Kaur has joined the company of her husband-petitioner and now they are living peacefully. Affidavits of respondent No.1 as well as petitioner have been placed on the record wherein it has been sworn by the parties that they have amicably settled the dispute and since 3.12.2006 they are living together as husband-wife and as a consequence thereof, respondent No.1 does not want to pursue the criminal proceedings against the petitioner and that she has no objection in quashing of the impugned FIR. By now it is fully settled that the High Court in exercise of inherent powers can quash the proceedings if it finds that allowing of any such proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court or that ends of justice require that the proceedings be quashed. In the case of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswami, AIR 1977 SC 1489, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the ends of justice are higher than ends of mere law, though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the legislature yet the Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In the case of Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya and others 1980(1) SCC 63, the essence of compromise has been summed up in following words:- “ The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.” The Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulvinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, while 3 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 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 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.” In the instant case, as emerges from record, the parties have mutually settled their dispute and have purchased peace for each other. Respondent No.1 has returned to her matrimonial home and they are living in congenial atmosphere. Taking into account these facts, this Court is of the considered view that continuance of such a prosecution is nothing but 4 an exercise in futility and sheer wastage of time of Court. Therefore, considering the aspect of settlement having arrived at between the parties, it is a fit case where interference of this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned FIR and all other consequent proceedings thereto in respect of the petitioner are quashed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE November 18, 2008 Jiten