CRM No.M-28644 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-28644 of 2010 Date of Decision:02.11.2010 Sudesh Kumar and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1-State. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The conspectus of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the present petition, is that the marriage of complainant-Sarita(respondent No.2) was solemnised with petitioner No.1-Sudesh Kumar on 19.10.2001, according to the Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. After solemnisation of the marriage, they resided together and cohabited as husband and wife. One female child was born out of the said wedlock. The complainant claimed that although her parents gave sufficient dowry articles at the time of her marriage, but the accused party was not satisfied with the same. They started harassing and torturing her for bringing insufficient dowry. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the complainant that the petitioners-accused treated her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of complainant-Sarita, the present case was registered against the petitioners-accused, vide FIR No.278 CRM No.M-28644 of 2010 2 dated 13.10.2003(Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC, by the police of Police Station City Abohar, District Ferozepur. 3. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report/challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against the accused in the trial Court. During the pendency of the case, good sense prevailed and the parties have entered into a compromise/affidavit(Annexure P-3). The marriage of the complainant and petitioner No.1 has already been dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 22.02.2010(Annexure P-2). They have decided to live peacefully after dissolution of their marriage. 4. In this manner, now the petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing the FIR (Annexure P1) and all subsequent proceedings thereto on the basis of compromise/affidavit(Annexure P-3), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter-alia, pleading that the matter has already been amicably settled between them with the intervention of Panchayat and the respectables. In pursuance of the order of this Court, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar, has also submitted the report reiterating that the parties have voluntarily made their statements with regard to the settlement of their disputes. 5. What is not disputed here is that the marriage of complainant-Sarita (respondent No.2) and petitioner No.1-Sudesh Kumar, has already been dissolved by their mutual consent by a decree of divorce dated 22.02.2010(Annexure P-2) under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. 6. Above being the position on record, now the sole question that arises for determination in this petition is as to whether it would be expedient in the interest of justice to quash the criminal prosecution or not? 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to me, justice would be sub-served if the parties are allowed to compromise CRM No.M-28644 of 2010 3 the matter in this relevant context. 8. The law of settlement of criminal disputes by virtue of compromise is not res integra and is well settled. The clear and explicit intention of the Legislature in this context was transformed in reality by Hon'ble Apex Court in cases Manoj Sharma v. State & Ors. 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 827; B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana 2003 (2) RCR (Crl.) 888 (SC) and Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052. 9. The crux of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is that the power under Section 482 Cr.PC has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever- lasting congeniality in society and resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same, unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery if the statement is fair being free from under pressure. Meaning thereby, the High Court has unlimited power to quash the criminal proceedings, relatable to such matrimonial cases, on the basis of lawful settlement. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is fully attracted in the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 10. As is evident from the record that the parties have compromised the matter and decided to live separately. The divorce has already been granted to them vide decree of divorce dated 22.02.2010. To my mind, the compromise would be in the interest and welfare of the parties. Since, the parties have lawfully agreed to settle the dispute, so, to my mind, there is no impediment in translating the wishes of the parties into reality and to quash the criminal prosecution to set CRM No.M-28644 of 2010 4 the matter at rest to enable them to live in peace and to enjoy the life and liberty in a dignified manner, as guaranteed by and as contemplated in the Constitution of India. 11. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No.278 dated 13.10.2003(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto, are quashed and the petitioners are discharged, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. November 02, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE