Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1026 (PNJ)

Rajesh Verma v. State of Haryana

2011-04-07

NIRMALJIT KAUR

body2011
JUDGMENT Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) - This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 21 dated 12.02.2008 under Sections 406, 498-A IPC Police Station Pinjore (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 07.09.2010 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-8. 2. In the present case, the matrimonial dispute between the parties CRM No. M 719 of 2011 led to filing of the present FIR. 3. Reply on behalf of respondent No. 2 has also been filed admitting the contents of the petition. As per compromise deed dated 07.09.2010, copy thereof has been placed on record as Annexure P8, the parties have amicably settled the dispute. The petitioner has agreed to pay Rs.1,40,000/-to the respondent wife towards maintenance etc. The parties have also decided to live apart. 4. 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 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.” 5. 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.” 5. 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 CRM No. M 719 of 2011 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.” 6. The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed. 7. Taking into account the allegations, compromise as well as reply of the complainant, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the above said settled proposition of law. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 21 dated 12.02.2008 under Sections 406, 498-A IPC Police Station Pinjore (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms.