Crl.M.No.23907-M of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.23907-M of 2010 Date of Order: 6.10.2010 Tarun Pahuja and another .....Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. S.K. Monga, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Addl.A.G, Haryana. Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for respondent No.2-complainant. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) Prayer in the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is for quashing FIR No.531 dated 17.10.2006, under Sections 498-A/406/323/506 IPC, P.S. City Kaithal on the basis of compromise (P.2). Dispute stated to be between husband and the wife is personal in nature. As per the allegations in the FIR, complainant-respondent No.2/Manju was maltreated and given beatings at the hands of the petitioners for want of demand of dowry. Upon notice, respondent No.2 is present in court and has been identified by her counsel Sh. Rakesh Nagpal. She has stated that she has reached a compromise with the petitioners and she owns the compromise deed dated 2.2.2010 (P.2). Her statement has been separately recorded whereby she no longer wishes to pursue the prosecution of the petitioners and has no objection if the present FIR and all subsequent proceedings are quashed. Crl.M.No.23907-M of 2010 #2# Learned state counsel, on instructions from SI Rameshwar, P.S City Kaithal, states that the charges have been framed in this case. He further states that he is unable to raise any serious objection to the quashing of the FIR on the basis of the compromise since the complainant is not willing to support the prosecution case. A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash an FIR disclosing the commission of non compoundable offences. The relevant extracts read 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.” Similar views were expressed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abot v. State of Punjab 2008(4) SCC 582, the relevant extract of which is as under:- “We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question Crl.M.No.23907-M of 2010 #3# 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.” Keeping in view the above settled legal position and taking into account the fact that both the parties have desired to live in peace and harmony and carry on with their lives by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, 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 the FIR in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.531 dated 17.10.2006, under Sections 498-A/406/323/506 IPC, P.S. City Kaithal and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. October 06, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE