Crl. Misc.No. M-13813 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc.No. M-13813 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.05.2011 Parveen Kumar and others ....Petitioners versus State of U.T and another ...Respondents 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. S.S. Bains, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Anil Kumar Lamdharia, Advocate for respondent No. 1 Mr. Madan Lal, Advocate for respondent No. 2 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.228 dated 07.11.2008 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 406/498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the Code') registered at Police Station, Sector 31, Chandigarh and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, including the proceedings, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Chandigarh. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2/complainant got married on 20.6.2006 at Village Mullanpur Garib Das, District Mohali and subsequently a matrimonial dispute arose between the parties. The petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are the relations of petitioner No. 1. Crl. Misc.No. M-13813 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Thereafter, the above said FIR was registered against all the petitioners. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 filed a divorce petition against petitioner No. 1 and divorce has been granted, vide judgment and decree dated 20.08.2010 passed by District Judge, Chandigarh. In the FIR, after investigation, challan was presented and the case was fixed for 14.06.2011 for prosecution evidence. After passing of the the decree of divorce, the parties have entered into compromise dated 02.05.2011 (Annexure P2). As per the compromise, the petitioner No. 1 has agreed to pay Rs. 9,50,000/- to respondent No. 2 as full and final settlement of all claims/damages of respondent No. 2. Out of Rs.9,50,000/-, amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- has been paid to respondent No. 2 Respondent No. 2 appeared through counsel and filed her reply by way of short affidavit admitting the factum of compromise and stating that she has entered into compromise (Annexure P2) on 02.05.2011 with the petitioners and she has no objection if the above said FIR is quashed against the petitioners. She has further stated that she has received remaining amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- which the petitioner has to be paid as per compromise arrived at between the parties. She has received Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash and sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- have been received by her today in the Court by means of two bank draft No. 964940 dated 14.05.2011 (photocopy enclosed) for Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of Travancore, Chandigarh and draft No. 518829 dated 14.05.2011 (photocopy enclosed) for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- drawn on UCO Bank, Behalana, Chandigarh from the petitioners. So, respondent No. 2 has received total amount of Rs. 9,50,000/- in terms of compromise Annexure P2 and nothing is outstanding towards the petitioners and all the disputes with the petitioners stands settled amicably. Respondent No.2-complainant is Crl. Misc.No. M-13813 of 2011 (O&M) -3- present in the Court and has identified by her counsel. The compromise is voluntarily and without any pressure. As per compromise (Annexure P-2), both the parties have settled the dispute amicably as per the conditions recorded in the compromise. Broad guidelines have been laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 for quashing the prosecution when parties entered into compromise. The Full Bench has observed that this power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- “26.In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, (1980)1 SCC 63, Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the essence of compromise in the following words :- “The finest hour of justice arrived propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.” 27. The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted by distorted perceptions and is not a slave to anything, except to the caution and circumspection, the standards of which the Court sets before it, in exercise of such plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it while donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of justice. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) if the Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 28. 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 Crl. Misc.No. M-13813 of 2011 (O&M) -4- power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social emity and reduces 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 by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429 has examined a case where quashing was sought of an FIR under Section 406 IPC being non-compoundable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :- “1. No useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise – There was no possibility of conviction. 2 It is advisable that in the disputes where question involved is of purely personal nature and no public policy is involved – Court should ordinarily accept the compromise. 3. Keeping the matter alive with no possibility of conviction is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 910 has examined a case where quashing was sought of an Crl. Misc.No. M-13813 of 2011 (O&M) -5- FIR under Section 498-A IPC being non-compoundable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :- “Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the parties have settled their differences. It was submitted on behalf of the complainant Smt. Sadhna Madnawat that she is not interested in prosecuting the appellants. It may be pertinent to mention that the parties hail from cultured and educated families. It was also submitted that the appellant's parents are suffering from multiple ailments because of advanced age. The appellant's father is a retired Professor and Dean, Veterinary College, Mathura and he had undergone transplant of his kidney and the appellant's mother is suffering from multiple ailments and is virtually bed-ridden.” Consequently, in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (supra) and Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (supra) and in view of the affidavit given by respondent No. 2, this Court has no hesitation to quash the present FIR. Accordingly, FIR No.228 dated 07.11.2008 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 406/498-A of the Code registered at Police Station, Sector 31, Chandigarh is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 17, 2011 G.Arora