JUDGMENT Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral).:- This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 47 dated 30.01.2009 under Sections 406, 498-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Kotwali, Patiala against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise having been arrived at between the parties. A separate statement of the complainant has also been recorded in the Court to the same effect. Both the parties had appeared before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre where a compromise was arrived at between the parties on 06.11.2009. As per the said compromise (P-4), the petitioner and the complainant have agreed to live together and have settled their dispute amicably. It was stated in the compromise that the disputes is settled and nothing is due against each other. 2. The allegations in the FIR arise out of the matrimonial dispute which is purely personal in nature. The matter has now been compromised amicable between the parties. The parties are happily staying together in a separate rented house. Statement to that effect has also been recorded in Court. 3. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another-[2007(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) (FB) 2225] : 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 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.” 4. 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. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.” 4. 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.” 5. 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, the compromise deserves to be accepted. Thus, it would be in the interest of justice to quash FIR No. 47 dated 30.01.2009 under Sections 406, 498-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Kotwali, Patiala as well as proceedings arising out of the same for keeping peace, harmony as well as to reduce friction in the society. 6. Accordingly, the aforesaid FIR and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. --------------