CRL.M.NO.11169-M of 2010(O&M) #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRL.M.NO.11169-M of 2010(O&M) DATE OF ORDER: 4.8.2010 Narayan Singh and others .....Petitioners vs. State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Balraj Gujar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Addl.A.G, Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. N.S. Pawar, Advocate for respondent No.2. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) Crl.M.No.20028 of 2010 Application is allowed as prayed for. Crl.M.No.11169-M of 2010 Prayer made in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is for quashing FIR No.326 dated 4.9.2003 under Sections 498-A/406/506 IPC, P.S City Bhiwani on the basis of compromise deed dated 16.3.2010 (P.2). As per the allegations in the FIR, petitioners used to taunt and harass respondent No.2-complainant on account of bringing less dowry. Upon notice, respondent No.2 is present in Court and has been identified by her counsel. She states that she has received Rs.70,000/- in lump sum as full and final settlement and has amicably compromised the matter with the petitioners. She further states that she has no objection if CRL.M.NO.11169-M of 2010(O&M) #2# the FIR and all consequent proceedings are quashed. Her statement has been separately recorded to this effect. Petitioner No.1-husband has also got his statement recorded to the effect that he shall continue to pay the awarded monthly maintenance in favour of his wife-respondent No.2 and his daughter in terms of order dated 5.5.2010 passed by the ld. District Judge (Family Court), Bhiwani in time and without any default or delay. Learned state counsel, in view of the compromise, does not seriously contest the prayer on behalf of the petitioners. In view of the fact that the complainant-respondent No.2/wife does not wish to pursue the prosecution in the present case and taking into account the undertaking given by the husband to pay the maintenance determined under Section 125 Cr.P.C in time, I find that no useful purpose would be served in pursuing the prosecution of the present 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 CRL.M.NO.11169-M of 2010(O&M) #3# 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 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 CRL.M.NO.11169-M of 2010(O&M) #4# 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.326 dated 4.9.2003 under Sections 498-A/406/506 IPC, P.S City Bhiwani and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. It is clarified that in case, petitioner No.1-husband violates his undertaking to pay the awarded maintenance in terms of his statement, he shall become liable to be hauled up in contempt proceedings. August 04, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE