CRM No. M 6517 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 6517 of 2011 Date of decision: 31.05.2011 Surinder Kumar Dhiman and others ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. R K Trikha, Advocate for the petitioners Ms Neelam, AAG, Punjab Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate for respondent No. 2 - complainant -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter 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 FIR No. 52 dated 05.03.2010 under Section 406, 498-A of Indian Penal Code, Police Station B Division, Amritsar City on the basis of the compromise as incorporated in the petition filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce by way of mutual consent pending in the Court of learned Additional District Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Amritsar. CRM No. M 6517 of 2011 2 In the present case, the matrimonial dispute between the parties led to filing of the said FIR. Now, the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has filed the affidavit of Complaint Preeti Virdi in Court today, stating therein, that the matter has been compromised. It is further stated in the affidavit that the matter has been finally settled for a sum of Rs.10 lacs as past, present and future alimony and a cheque to the tune of Rs.5 lacs was paid on 13.11.2010 and remaining Rs.5 lacs would be paid at the time of recording of the final statement in the Court at the time of passing the decree of divorce. However, learned counsel for the petitioners has handed over the banker cheque bearing No. 0450740 dated 30.05.2011 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- issued by the Axis Bank Limited in the name of Preeti Virdi- respondent today itself to the learned counsel for respondent No. 2. Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate appearing for respondent No. 2 while accepting the cheque on behalf of respondent No. 2 stated at the Bar that he has instructions to state the respondent-complainant shall make the statement in the petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, on the date fixed before the trial Court and shall be bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise and that respondent No. 2 has no objection if the said FIR is quashed as the entire amount i.e. Rs.10,00,000/- stand received. 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:- CRM No. M 6517 of 2011 3 “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.” Taking into account the allegations, compromise as well as affidavit of the complainant and the statement of the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 at the Bar coupled with the fact that the balance amount has been paid in the Court itself, there is no impediment in the way of this CRM No. M 6517 of 2011 4 Court to quash the present FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the above said settled proposition of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 52 dated 05.03.2010 under Section 406, 498-A of Indian Penal Code, Police Station B Division, Amritsar City and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 31.05.2011 mohan