IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-27160 of 2008 Date of Decision:28.2.2011 Rattan Kumar and another .... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another .... Respondents And CRM M-21461 of 2010 Date of Decision:28.2.2011 Puneet Bansal .... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another .... Respondents CRM M-28670 of 2010 Date of Decision:28.2.2011 Puneet Bansal .... Petitioner Versus Smt. Chanchal Bansal .... Respondent And CRM M-3276 of 2010 Date of Decision:28.2.2011 Puneet Bansal .... Petitioner Versus Smt. Chanchal Bansal .... Respondent And CRM M-21495 of 2010 Date of Decision:28.2.2011 Rattan Kumar Bansal and another .... Petitioner Versus Smt. Chanchal Bansal .... Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Sr. Advocate with Mr. D.B. Singh, Advocate. CRM M-27160 of 2008 -2- Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate. Mr. Sidharth Sarup, D.A.G. Haryana. Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate and Mr. Karan Singla, Advocate for the complainant. **** 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) The instant petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.429 dated 16.6.2006 under Sections 498- A/406/506/34 IPC Police Station City Sirsa as well as for quashing of complaint dated 1.7.2009 (Annexure P-1 attached with Crl. M. No.21495-M of 2010) and the summoning order dated 12.1.2010 (Annexure P-2 attached with Crl. M. No.21495-M of 2010) issued by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The FIR in question as well as complaint in question are result of matrimonial dispute. However, the matter is stated to have been compromised due to the intervention of the respectables of the family. The parties are present in the Court along with their respective counsel. Learned counsel for the complainant-Chanchal Bansal has placed on record the affidavit of the complainant admitting the factum of compromise. As per the said affidavit, complainant-Chanchal Bansal has no objection if the FIR in question as well as complaint in question are quashed in view of compromise arrived at between the parties before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa. Complainant-Chanchal Bansal, who is present in the Court got CRM M-27160 of 2008 -3- her statement recorded submitting therein that the matter has been compromised, the said compromise was entered into without any pressure and out of her own free will. It is further admitted by her that she has received an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of demand draft bearing No.895682 issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce, which is in her name, in the Court today as well as an amount of Rs.3000/- on account of cost imposed by the Court on 23.2.2011. It is further stated that she has received the entire payment as full and final settlement. Now, no further claim is pending towards the petitioners and their family members. She further undertakes to withdraw all the cases filed by her against the petitioners and their family members. A separate statement of petitioner No.1-Rattan Kumar has also been recorded in the Court today. As per his statement, the matter has been compromised. As per the compromise, he has paid the entire payment as full and final settlement. He further undertakes to withdraw all the cases filed by him against the complainant and her family members. Thus, there is no doubt that the matter has been compromised. 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:- CRM M-27160 of 2008 -4- “ 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 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 the complainant stating that she has no objection if the FIR in question as well as complaint in question are 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 present petitions are allowed and FIR No.429 dated 16.6.2006 under Sections 498-A/406/506/34 IPC Police Station City CRM M-27160 of 2008 -5- Sirsa as well as complaint dated 1.7.2009 (Annexure P-1 attached with Crl. M. No.21495-M of 2010) and the summoning order dated 12.1.2010 (Annexure P-2 attached with Crl. M. No.21495-M of 2010) issued by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. However, the parties will be bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise and the all the cases filed by them against each other shall be withdrawn. A copy of this order be placed in the other connected cases. 28.2.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE