Crl.M.No.3239-M of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.3239-M of 2010 Date of Decision: 1.7.2010 Raju .......Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana and another ........Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Ms. Anju Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yashpal Malik, DAG, Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. R.S. Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.2. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C was filed for quashing of FIR No.91 dated 3.5.2001 under Sections 323/406/506/452/498-A/34 IPC, P.S Sadar Hansi on the basis of compromise dated 18.12.2009 (P.2.). The aforementioned FIR was lodged by the complainant- respondent No.2 Smt Bala (wife of the petitioner) against the petitioner and his family members. Although the case after framing of charge had reached the stage of recording of prosecution witnesses, the parties have arrived at a compromise. Said compromise (P.2) is annexed with the petition. This Court vide order dated 21.5.2010 had requested the trial Court to send a report regarding the genuineness of compromise. The report along with statements of parties dated 11.6.2007 has Crl.M.No.3239-M of 2010 #2# been received and the same is taken on record as Mark-A. 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 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 Crl.M.No.3239-M of 2010 #3# of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” Keeping in view the above settled legal position and taking into account the fact that the compromise has been effected between the parties with respect to quashing of FIR, it is evident that 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 petition is allowed and FIR No.91 dated 3.5.2001 registered under Sections 323/406/506/452/498-A/34 IPC, P.S Sadar Hansi and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. July 01, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE