Gurmeet Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Mr. K B Raheja, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, DAG, Punjab for the respondent – State Mr. Darshan Sikngh Malwai, Advocate for respondent No. 2 Mr. V Ramswaroop, Advocate for respondent No. 5 -.-

#3. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? To be referred to the Reporter or not? Whether the judgment 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. 158 dated 30.10.2007 under Section 406, 498-A IPC Police Station Division No. 7, Jalandhar (Annexure P-1) on the basis of the compromise dated 23.02.02012 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. CRM No. M 6583 of 2012 2 In the present case, a matrimonial dispute between respondent No. 2 (wife) and respondent No.3 (husband) led to filing of the said FIR. The aforesaid FIR was got registered at the instance of Hazara Singh father of respondent No. 2 (Balwinder Kaur). Hazara Singh is stated to have expired. Moreover, the marriage between respondent No. 2 and 3 stands dissolved by decree of divorce with mutual consent under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, vide judgment dated 17.01.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. Respondent No. 2 is also present Court along with her counsel and has filed her affidavit stating therein that with the intervention of the respectable, friends and relatives, all the dispute have been amicably settled and she does not want to pursue the matter any further. It is pointed by the learned State counsel that the present petitioner is a proclaimed offender. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has already been released on bail by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that FIR qua accused Jatinder Kaur has already been quashed by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 07.07.2012 passed in CRM M 28340 of 2010 (P4). From the above, it is clear that the parties have amicably compromised the matter and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings. 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:- CRM No. M 6583 of 2012 3 “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.” 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.” Taking into account the allegations, compromise as well as affidavit of Balwinder Kaur daughter of Hazara Singh, 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. CRM No. M 6583 of 2012 4 Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 158 dated 30.10.2007 under Section 406, 498-A IPC Police Station Division No. 7, Jalandhar (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms.

29.03.2012 (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge