CRM No. M 14338 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 14338 of 2010 Date of decision: 15.07.2010 Pooja Kumari and others ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for for the petitioners Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2 - complainant -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement 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. 18 dated 25.02.2007 under Sections 406, 420, 506, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Bholath, District Kapurthala, which was got registered by respondent No. 2 – complainant (Joginder Singh) against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise deed dated 06/08.05.2010 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the said compromise has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. Complainant-Joginder Singh CRM No. M 14338 of 2010 2 has also filed his affidavit in Court today stating therein that he has no objection if the said FIR is quashed in view of the compromise deed dated 06.05.2010. A separate statement of the complainant to the same effect is got recorded in the Court. Complainant Joginder Singh, in his statement, submitted that the matter has been compromised and he has no objection if the aforesaid FIR is quashed. He also gave an undertaking that he is bound by the terms and conditions of compromise deed dated 06.05.2010. Similarly, a separate statement of Pooja Kumari-petitioner No. 1 is also got recorded in the Court today stating therein that she shall abide by the terms and conditions of the compromise deed dated 06.0.2010. 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:- “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:- CRM No. M 14338 of 2010 3 “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.” The present dispute arises out of the matrimonial dispute and the same has been compromised. The said compromise is arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed. Taking into account the allegations, the statements that petitioner No.1 and complainant will be bound by the terms and condition of the compromise as well as affidavit of the complainant and the matter being totally personal in nature, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the above settled proposition of law. Accordingly, the aforesaid FIR and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed qua the present petitioner. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 15.07.2010 mohan