CRM No. M 1711 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 1711 of 2010 Date of decision: 03.03.2010 Meenakshi and another ........ petitioners Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Shilak Ram Hooda, Advocate for for the petitioners Mr. Sanjeev Sura, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent- State Petitioners in persons -.- 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 petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 421 dated 28.08.2009 (Annexure P-1) under Section 323, 325, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code got registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Sonepat by petitioner No.1 against petitioner No. 2, who is the husband of petitioner No. 1 on the basis of compromise having arrived at between the petitioners as both have amicably resolved their dispute. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that CRM No. M 1711 of 2010 2 marriage between petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No.2 was solemnised on 02.02.1998 at Sonepat. Out of the wedlock, two children were born out but after some time, some altercation took place between petitioner No. 1- wife and petitioner No. 2-husband over a trivial issue, which took serious shape. Both the parties involved their family members in their personal dispute and the present FIR has been got registered by petitioner No. 1 against petitioners No. 2, i.e. her husband and his parents. It is further stated that now with intervention of the relatives as well as well wishers of the petitioners, the dispute between them has been amicably resolved. The present petition has been filed jointly by both the petitioners. Both the petitioners are also present in Court. They do not want to pursue their respective cases and want to lead a peaceful married life. It is stated that both the petitioners are residing together with their kids under one roof in the matrimonial home of petitioner No.1 which is the parental house of petitioner No. 2. 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 CRM No. M 1711 of 2010 3 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:- “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 is a case which is purely personal in nature and the compromise has been arrived at between the parties. Taking into account the fact that petitioner No. 1 and petitioners No.2 are happily residing along with their kids and they have amicably resolved their dispute, it is a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction by CRM No. M 1711 of 2010 4 this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the present FIR. Keeping the Criminal proceedings alive will be a futile exercise. Keeping in mind the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh as well as the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot (supra) as also the facts of the present case, it would be in the interest of justice to quash FIR No. 421 dated 28.08.2009 (Annexure P-1) under Section 323, 325, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Sonepat and further proceedings arising out of the same for keeping peace, harmony as well as to reduce friction in the society. Accordingly, the aforesaid FIR and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge March 03,2010 mohan