1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 6649-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 14.5.2008 *** Pawan Kumar & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Damanjeet, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Sra, DAG Punjab. Mr. Sukhjit Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2 who is in person. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2 is taken on record. The petitioner No.1 is husband of Smt. Rekha Sharma respondent No.2 while petitioners No.2 and 3 are her mother-in-law and father-in-law respectively. They are seeking quashing of FIR No. 161 dated 10.7.2007, under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 IPC got registered by respondent No.2 against them at Police Station Shimlapuri, Ludhiana and also the consequent proceedings thereto, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-1) stated to have entered between them. It has been contended that the marriage of Rita Devi was solemnized with petitioner No.1 on 25.2.200 and a male child is in existence out of this wedlock. However, on account of strained relations between the married couple, the instant FIR was got registered by respondent No.2 and now with the intervention of respectables, the matter has been settled and the couple has decided to take divorce and they have filed petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent. Compromise (Annexure P-1) has also been placed on record wherein the factum of compromise entered between the parties as 2 well as no objection with regard to the quashing of the impugned FIR has been mentioned. Even respondent No.2 while appearing in the Court has herself authenticated the compromise and has averred no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. In her reply filed by respondent No.2 all the averments made in the petition have been admitted. By now it is fully settled that the High Court in exercise of inherent powers can quash the proceedings if it finds that allowing of any such proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court or that ends of justice require that the proceedings be quashed. In the case of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswami, AIR 1977 SC 1489, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the ends of justice are higher than ends of mere law, though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the legislature yet the Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In the case of Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya and others 1980(1) SCC 63, the essence of compromise has been summed up in following words:- “ The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.” The Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulvinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, while discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise, by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non- compoundable offence(s) has held as under:- “28. 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 in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant 3 matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation. 29. 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 instant case, as emerges from record, the parties have mutually settled their dispute and have purchased peace for each other. They have decided to part their ways and have filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of their marriage by way of mutual consent. Taking into account these facts, this Court is of the considered view that continuance of such a prosecution is nothing but an exercise in futility and sheer wastage of time of Court. Therefore, considering the aspect of settlement having arrived at between the parties, it is a fit case where interference of this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned FIR and all other consequent proceedings thereto are quashed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 14, 2008 Jiten