Pardeep Kumar & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State Mr. Anil Arora, Advocate for respondent No. 2 - complainant -.-

#3. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? To be referred to the Reporter or not? Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 71 dated 19.09.2009 under Section 498-A and 406 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station D Division, District Amritsar (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. Affidavit dated 06.04.2010 has also been filed by the CRM No. M 13544 of 2010 2 complainant-Seema Rani stating therein that the parties had agreed upon to move a joint application under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 at District Court, Amritsar for divorce with mutual consent. It is further stated in the affidavit that it has been mutually settled between the parties that husband-Pardeep Kumar shall pay total a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- in the shape of two bank drafts of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant towards her maintenance and alimony Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. A separate statement of complainant Seema Devi is also got recorded in the Court stating therein that the matter has been compromised and total amount settled at Rs.6,00,000/- has been received by her vide two different demand drafts bearing Nos. 313007 dated 02.04.2010 and 313905 dated 11.08.2010, respectively. Similarly, a statement of Pardeep Kumar - husband is also got recorded in Court today, wherein, he has stated that the total settled amount i.e. Rs.6,00,000/- has been paid to the complainant vide two different demand drafts and he shall be bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise. The present FIR arises out of the matrimonial dispute. Now, the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties. 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. CRM No. M 13544 of 2010 3 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.” 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.” The present dispute arises out the matrimonial dispute. The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The entire amount as settled between the parties towards the maintenance and alimony has been received by the complainant and she has no objection if the said FIR is quashed. Taking into account the allegations, affidavit as well as the CRM No. M 13544 of 2010 4 statement of the complainant and petitioner No. 1 (husband), 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 well settled above proposition of law. Accordingly, FIR No. 71 dated 19.09.2009 under Section 498- A and 406 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station D Division, District Amritsar (Annexure P-1) and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms.

14.08.2010 (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge