IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-42159 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision:15.11.2010 Ghanshyam Sharma and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Tribhuwan Dahiya, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Preeti Chaudhary, A.A.G. Haryana. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 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) Crl. M. No.59453 of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. Crl. M. No.42159-M of 2007 The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.376 dated 19.5.2007 under Sections 498-A/323/406 IPC Police Station City Gurgaon. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the FIR in question is a result of matrimonial dispute. However, the matter has been compromised between the parties during the pendency of this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his argument has referred to order dated 8.11.2010 passed by District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon (Annexure P-18 vide Crl. M. No.59453 of 2010) to state that in pursuance to the compromise, the parties have filed petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for grant of decree of divorce by mutual consent CRM M-42159 of 2007 (O&M) -2- wherein joint statement of the parties was recorded in which they have stated that they are living separately since December 2006 and there is no possibility of their living together, therefore, they have decided to dissolve their marriage by way of mutual consent and respondent No.2 has received Rs.six lacs from petitioner No.4 as permanent alimony and nothing remains due towards either side and no claim of future maintenance or any right in property etc. would be raised by either of the party. After the dissolution of Marriage, respondent No.2 shall not claim any maintenance or permanent alimony from petitioner No.4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to affidavit (Annexure P-16) of respondent No.2 admitting the factum of compromise with respect to the FIR in question. Learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on the judgment of 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. It is further held 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 matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non- compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under CRM M-42159 of 2007 (O&M) -3- Section 320 of the Cr.P.C in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.” 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.” Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 has not opposed the arguments or factum of compromise raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. However, he states that the matter has been compromised and he has instructions to state that respondent No.2 has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. Taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties, decree of divorce by mutual consent (Annexure P-18), affidavit (Annexure P-16) of respondent No.2 and the statement made learned counsel for respondent No.2 that respondent No.2 has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed, it is a fit case where there is no CRM M-42159 of 2007 (O&M) -4- impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.376 dated 19.5.2007 under Sections 498-A/323/406 IPC Police Station City Gurgaon and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the matter having been finally settled, the respondent having been paid the amount as per the compromise which is towards full and final settlement, the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- ordered to be deposited in the trial Court vide order dated 11.1.2010 be released to him. The learned counsel for the respondent has no objection if the said amount is ordered to be released. Accordingly, the trial Court is directed to release the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioners alongwith interest, if any. 15.11.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE