IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M. No.M-5050 of 2011 Date of Decision:20.5.2011 Jasjit Kaur and another .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents And Crl. M. No.M-10718 of 2011 Date of Decision:20.5.2011 Ranjot Singh and another .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents ` And Crl. M. No.M-24521 of 2010 Date of Decision:20.5.2011 Inderpal Singh Sidhu .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents And Crl. M. No.M-26906 of 2010 Date of Decision:20.5.2011 Jaswant Singh Garcha .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Brar, A.A.G. Punjab. Mr. Parvez Chugh, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 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. By this common order, Crl. M. No.M-5050 of 2011, Crl. M. No.M-10718 of 201, Crl. M. No.M-24521 of 2010 and Crl. M. No.M- Crl. M. No.M-5050 of 2011 -2- 26906 of 2010 shall be decided together wherein the prayer is for quashing of FIR No.187 dated 18.5.2010 under Sections 498- A/406/323 IPC Police Station Tripri Town, District Patiala and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The FIR in question is a result of matrimonial dispute and was got registered by respondent No.2-complainant against the petitioners in all the above mentioned petitions, who are husband, mother-in-law, sisters-in-law, husband of the sister-in-law and friend of the husband. However, the matter has since been compromised due to the intervention of the respectables of the family. The parties are present in the Court alongwith their respective counsel. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has placed on record the affidavit of respondent No.2 admitting the factum of compromise. As per the said affidavit, respondent No.2 has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. 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 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 Crl. M. No.M-5050 of 2011 -3- of law and to secure the ends of justice.” In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. 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 litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” Taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties and the affidavit of respondent No.2 stating that she has no objection if the FIR is quashed, it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the instant petitions are allowed and FIR No.187 dated 18.5.2010 under Sections 498-A/406/323 IPC Police Station Tripri Town, District Patiala and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. A photo copy of this order be placed on the connected case. 20.5.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE