IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-32036 of 2009 Date of decision : 11.2.2010 Manpreet Kaur and others …. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another …. Respondents Present: Ms. Deepika Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. VPS Sidhu, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Karamveer Singh Banyana, Advocate for respondent No.2 with Nachhattar Singh (respondent No.2) in person. **** S.S. SARON, J. Reply by way of affidavit of Nachhattar Singh (respondent No.2) filed in Court today is taken on record. The petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the complaint (Annexure P1) titled Nachhattar Singh v. Manpreet Kaur and others pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Talwandi Sabo and the summoning order dated 13.9.2008 (Annexure P2) whereby the petitioners have been summoned on the allegations of having committed the offences under Sections 420, 199, 200/34 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short). The quashing of the complaint and summoning order is sought in view of the compromise dated 09.11.2009 (Annexure P3). Crl. Misc. No. M-32036 of 2009 [2] Nachhattar Singh (respondent No.2) filed a complaint (Annexure P1) alleging that the marriage of his son namely Nav Gagandeep Singh was solemnized on 9.7.2006 with Manpreet Kaur (petitioner No.1). However, the attitude of petitioner No.1 was not good towards her husband namely Nav Gagandeep Singh and his parents. This had resulted in various litigations. Case FIR No.151 dated 5.11.2007 was registered at Police Station Talwandi Sabo for the offences under Sections 406, 498-A and 109 IPC. Besides, a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was also filed by Manpreet Kaur (petitioner No.1). In any case, now the parties had decided to settle all their matrimonial disputes and a compromise dated 09.11.2009 (Annexure P3) had been entered into. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that FIR No.151 dated 5.11.2007 which was lodged by petitioner No.1 Manpreet Kaur has been quashed by a coordinate Bench of this Court today on the basis of compromise (Annexure P3). Therefore, it is prayed that this petition be allowed and the complaint (Annexure P1) and the summoning order (Annexure P2) be quashed. In response, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/respondent No.2 on instructions from respondent No.2 who is present in Court submits that the complainant (Nachhattar Singh - respondent No.2) has no objection to the quashing of the FIR as the matter has been compromised vide compromise dated 9.11.2009 (Annexure P3). Learned counsel for the State has submitted that it is a private complaint filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioners and the same having been arisen out of a matrimonial dispute, the State Crl. Misc. No. M-32036 of 2009 [3] would have no objection to its quashing, in case the matrimonial dispute has been amicably resolved. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it is appropriate to note that the complaint (Annexure P1) in the case arises out of the matrimonial dispute between the son of the complainant/respondent No.2 and Manpreet Kaur (petitioner No.1). The same has admittedly been compromised between the parties vide compromise dated 9.11.2009 (Annexure P3). Therefore, it would be just and expedient that the impugned complaint (Annexure P1) and the summoning order (Annexure P3) are quashed as the dispute is personal in nature between the parties; besides, it is an off shoot of the matrimonial dispute between the son of the complainant and petitioner No.1. In Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 582 it was observed by the Supreme Court as follows:- We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where by 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 the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach Crl. Misc. No. M-32036 of 2009 [4] to the matter based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law. Besides, a five Judges Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 has been observed as follows:- “ The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted by distorted perceptions and is not a slave to anything, except to the caution and circumspection, the standards of which the Court sets before it, in exercise of such plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it while donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of justice. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320 (9) of the CrPC, or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the CrPC. 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 CrPC is sued to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is ‘finest Crl. Misc. No. M-32036 of 2009 [5] hour of justice’. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord- tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC 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”. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and the complaint dated 29.1.2008 (Annexure P1) titled Nachhattar Singh v. Manpreet Kaur and others pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Talwandi Sabo and the summoning order dated 13.9.2008 (Annexure P2) for the offences under Sections 420, 199, 200/34 IPC and all subsequent and consequential proceedings arising therefrom shall stand quashed on the basis of compromise dated 09.11.2009 (Annexure P3). (S.S. SARON) JUDGE February 11, 2010 amit