JUDGMENT

Harsh Bunger, J. (Oral)

This petition has been filed under Section 4 82 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.561 dated 23.11.2020, under Section 4 20 IPC & sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station City Fatehabad, District Fatehabad, Haryana (Annexure P-1) and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise/agreement dated 03.02.2021 (Annexure P-2).

2. Vide order dated 12.12.2022, the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was directed to record the statements of the parties with regard to the genuineness and validity of the compromise.

3. In compliance thereof, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad has submitted a consolidated report, vide letter dated 20.12.2022 which indicates that the parties appeared before the Magistrate and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the validity of compromise. As per the report, compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine and with free will and consent. Relevant extract of the said report is reproduced as under:-

" - x - x -

Accordingly, my point-wise report is as under :-

(i) Number of persons arrayed as accused in the FIR. There were three persons arrayed as accused in the FIR namely, (1) Harminder Singh Grewal son of Inder Pal Singh;

(2) Harvinder Kaur Grewal wife of Harminder Singh Grewal son of Inder Pal Singh and (3) Jashandeep Grewal son of Harminder Singh Grewal, all residents of Gali No.1, near Nankana Sahib Chowk, Chahal Colony, Sangrur, Punjab.

(ii) Whether any accused is declared as proclaimed offender?

No.

(iii) Whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence?

The compromise appears to be genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence.

- x - x - "

4. A perusal of the said report would show that statements of the concerned persons have been recorded in the case, who have stated that the matter has been compromised and respondents No.2 and 3 have further endorsed their no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed qua the petitioners. They have further stated that the compromise arrived at between them is genuine, voluntary and without any pressure.

5. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 has again reiterated that the matter has been settled and the said compromise is in the interest of all the persons and would help in bringing out peace and amity between the parties.

6. Learned State counsel does not raise any serious dispute regarding quashing of aforesaid FIR in question.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the file.

8. In Shakuntala Sawhney v. Kaushalya Sawhney , (1979) 3 SCR 639, at P 642, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the finest hour of Justice arises propitiously when parties, who fell apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship or reunion.

9. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 has held as under:-

"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend