IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-25256 of 2009 Date of Decision:9.3.2010 Navjot Kaur and another .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. M.S. Khaira, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dharminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved for quashing of FIR No.96 dated 29.07.2009 registered under Sections 307/34 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act at Police Station Khamanon (Punjab) and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. It is stated that on 22.8.2009, petitioner No.1 moved an application before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib alongwith duly sworn affidavit dated 22.8.2009 as well as compromise deed dated 22.8.2009 for compounding the case. The same are placed on record as Annexure P-2 (collectively). As per the allegations made in the FIR, petitioner No.2- husband fired at petitioner No.1-wife which hit on her head due to which she fell down and received injuries. The allegations are serious in nature. An FIR under Section 307 IPC has been registered. Normally, this Court would not have entertained the quashing in an offence of such a nature. However, the peculiar facts and circumstances in the present case have CRM M-25256 of 2009 -2- moved the Court to accept the compromise. Petitioner No.1-Navjot Kaur is the author of the FIR against her husband i.e. petitioner No.2-Jatinder Pal Singh. Petitioner No.1-wife and petitioner No.2-husband have a son out of the wedlock, who is about 3 years old. This petition has been moved jointly by the petitioners. Petitioner No.2 is the accused in the said FIR. The matter has since been compromised with the intervention of the respectables of the village. Now, there is no dispute between them. The petitioners have resolved to live peacefully and happily with one another. Petitioner No.1-wife and Petitioner No.2 husband are residing together since the date of the release of petitioner No.2 from the jail i.e. for the last 4-5 months. Petitioner No.1, who is present in Court, has made a separate statement in the Court today. She is educated. Thus, she is aware of the consequences of her statement. She is presently preparing for her examination of M.A. Part-I English. As per the statement, she is residing happily with her husband. She further stated that on account of the aforesaid FIR , her husband is under suspension. She has a son. Now that the family is residing together, she and her son are suffering on account of the fact that her husband is out of job. Therefore, it is in her interest and the interest of her son and her family that the FIR in question should be quashed. Petitioner No.1 was very clear with respect to her stand. The Court is satisfied that the compromise is genuine. The girl pleaded before the court that FIR registered by her be quashed for the sake of her child and also on account of the fact that the husband and wife wish to reside together, peacefully and without any pressure of fighting litigation and CRM M-25256 of 2009 -3- harassment of regular visits to courts. 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 held that 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 not only in matrimonial discord but others as well, such compromise deserves to be accepted. Facts of each case have to be taken into consideration. In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008 (4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised 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.” The compromise will not only allow the parties to sink their differences but allow them to come together and live together as a family. Thus, in the interests of justice and in view of the peculiar facts of the present case, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.96 dated CRM M-25256 of 2009 -4- 29.07.2009 registered under Sections 307/34 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act at Police Station Khamanon (Punjab) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the interest of justice and to allow the parties to live together as a family. 9.3.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE