HARBJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Harbjan Singh, the petitioner by way of filing Criminal Misc. No.M-15432 of 2009 seeks quashing of report dated 27.10.2007 (Annexure P2) filed under section 173 Cr.P.C. in case bearing FIR No. 196 dated 4.9.2007 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Bhulath, District Kapurthala for an offence punishable under sections 498-A and 494 while Joginder Singh and five others, the petitioners by way of filing Criminal Misc. No.M-31789 of 2011 seek quashing of Complaint No. 10 dated 18.3.2008 titled as Prabhjot Kaur Vs. Harbhajan Singh and others filed by respondent No.2 under sections 417, 494, 495, 406, 498- A read with section 120-B IPC, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though, initially, the aforementioned two petitions were filed for quashing of the report under section 173 Cr.P.C. and the complaint case on merits, yet during the pendency of these cases, the parties have amicably entered into a compromise with the intervention of respectables. He has also placed on record a compromise deed dated 16.3.2013. Respondent No.2, Prabhjot Kaur is present in person. She has filed her affidavit asserting that the matter has been settled between the parties vide compromise deed dated 16.3.2013.

(3.) It is common knowledge that decisions rendered by the courts in adversarial form would leave one or the other of the parties unsatisfied. Sometimes, none of the two is satisfied. The compromise arrived at between the parties washes away all the grievances of the warring factions and pave way for normal relations in future between them. Taking restoration of peace and harmonious relations between the parties and order in the society as the prime concerns of law, it has been held by this court in Dharambir Vs. State of Haryana, 2005 (3) RCR (Criminal) 426 that a non compoundable matrimonial offence could be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties. However, the said decision left a gap as it did not cover the cases other than the cases for matrimonial offences. A Larger Bench of five Hon'ble Judges of this court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 took the following decision with regard to the other non-compoundable offences:-