Criminal Misc. No. M- 21852 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 21852 of 2010 Date of decision:-22.3.2011 Ashish and others ...Petitioners Versus Smt Poonam and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Chiranji Lal, Advocate for respondent No.1-complainant. Mr. P.S. Virk, DAG Haryana for respondent No.2-State. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 186 dated 05.9.2008 under Sections 498-A, 406,506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Shivaji Colony, Rohtak (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise. Brief facts as per FIR are that marriage between complainant- Poonam and petitioner No.1-Ashish Kumar was solemnized on 12.12.2005 at Rohtak. The complainant gave birth to a male child on 31.10.2006. Thereafter, some dispute arose between the parties and complainant left the company of petitioners on 19.8.2007. She started living with her parents and a complaint was filed against the above mentioned petitioners and subsequently FIR was lodged. After the investigation in the trial Court, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence on 16.2.2011. A petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was Criminal Misc. No. M- 21852 of 2010 -2- filed for maintenance on 14.8.2008. During pendency of this petition, compromise was effected in the mediation center at Rohtak on 06.6.2009. It was agreed between both the parties that they will file petition under Section 13- B of Hindu Marriage Act for mutual divorce. Petitioner No.1 was agreed to pay Rs.1,25,000/- to the complainant as permanent alimony in two instalments. Rs. 62,500/- were paid on the date of recording of statements at the first hearing of the petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act. During pendency of this petition, an affidavit of complainant Poonam was filed stating that she has received the remaining amount. It was agreed between the parties that the child be handed over to petitioner No.1. The complainant has withdrawn the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 13.8.2009. Decree of divorce was passed on 17.9.2010 in favour of petitioner under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act. The complainant is present in the Court. She is duly identified by her counsel. In her affidavit, she has stated that she has no objection if the above mentioned FIR registered against the petitioners is quashed. She has received the entire amount of Rs.1,25,000/- from the petitioners. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 21852 of 2010 -3- 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 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 ratio of the Full Bench judgment is a special reference which has been made to the offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide where the victim dies in the course of transaction would fall in the category where compounding may not be permitted. Heinous offences like Criminal Misc. No. M- 21852 of 2010 -4- highway robbery, dacoity or a case involving clear-cut allegations of rape should also fall in the prohibited category. However, the offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide may be permitted to be compounded when the Court is in the position to record a finding that the settlement between the parties is voluntary and fair. The Court must examine the cases of weaker and vulnerable victims with necessary caution. 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 21852 of 2010 -5- 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 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (supra) 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 Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another (supra), FIR No. 186 dated 05.9.2008 under Sections 498-A, 406,506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Shivaji Colony, Rohtak, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. March 22, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE