Criminal Misc.-M No. 28263 of 2011 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. -M No. 28263 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.10.2011 Nishant Tandon and others ...Petitioners vs State of Punjab and another ...Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present Mr. Bhrigu Dutt Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. P. S. Bajwa, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent no. 1. Mr. Sudhir Paruthi, Advocate, for respondent no. 2. Rajesh Bindal, J. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No. 22 dated 18.6.2011, registered under Sections 406, 498-A IPC and Sections 3, 5, 6, of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, at Police Station Women Cell, Jalandhar, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise. The aforesaid FIR has been got registered on the statement of respondent no. 2- Rajni Tandon daughter of Prem Chand against the petitioners for causing harassment and demand of dowry. Now the parties have compromised the matter and sought quashing of the FIR on that basis. Briefly, the facts of the case are that marriage of petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 4.8.1997 at Jalandhar, according to Hindu rites. Two children, namely, Saiyam Tandon (son) and Arshia Tandon (daughter) were born. Due to temperamental differences, the parties could not pull on together. Respondent no. 2 got registered the aforementioned FIR against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that with the intervention of respectables of both the parties, the matter has now been compromised. The petitioners have also placed on record compromise (Annexure P-1), according to which they will withdraw all the cases filed Criminal Misc.-M No. 28263 of 2011 (2) against each other. It was further submitted that petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 have filed a petition before the District Judge, Jalandhar, under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1954 for grant of divorce by way of mutual consent, in which on first motion statements of both the parties have been recorded and the case is adjourned to 11.4.2012 for second motion. The wife has handed over the custody of both the children to the husband i.e. their father. The husband shall withdraw the custody petition pending before the Guardian Court at Jalandhar as compromised. The mother shall have custody of the children twice a month. She will pick up the children from the house of husband on a holiday or on any agreed date and time and leave back at the same place in the afternoon. The date and time can be settled mutually. The husband has withdrawn the petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act as compromised. Learned counsel further submitted that once all the disputes between the parties have been settled as per compromise, the FIR deserves to be quashed. Reliance has been placed upon a five Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh versus State of Punjab 2007 (3) Law Herald (P&H) 2225. Today petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2-complainant, had appeared in Court in person. Respondent no. 2 has also filed a short reply. She has admitted the compromise (Annexure P-1). Petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 have also suffered a joint statement in the court, which has been recorded separately. The relevant extract of the statement is as under:- “Our marriage was solemnised, as per Hindu rites on 4.8.1997 at Jalandhar. Out of our wedlock two children Saiyam Tandon (son) and Arshia Tandon (daughter) were born. Due to temperamental differences, we could not live together. We are living separate since 17.12.2009. Number of efforts made for reconciliation failed. The wife has lodged FIR No. 22 dated 18.6.2011, under Sections 406, 498-A IPC and Sections 3, 5, 6, of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, at Police Station Women Cell, Jalandhar, against the husband and his parents. Now we have compromised the matter (Annexure P-1 attached with Criminal Misc.-M No. 28263 of 2011 (3) the petition). We will abide by the terms of the compromise. As per compromise, we have filed a petition before the District Judge, Jalandhar, under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1954 for grant of divorce by way of mutual consent, in which on first motion, our statements have been recorded and the case is adjourned to 11.4.2012 for second motion. The wife has handed over the custody of both the children to the husband i.e. their father. The husband shall withdraw the custody petition pending before the Guardian Court at Jalandhar as compromised. The mother shall have custody of the children twice a month. She will pick up the children from the house of husband on a holiday or on any agreed date and time and leave back at the same place in the afternoon. The date and time can be settled mutually. The husband has withdrawn the petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act as compromised. We will not indulge each other or their family members in any litigation in future. The wife has no objection to the quashing of aforementioned FIR and other proceedings arising out therefrom.” Dealing with issue of quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise, a Bench consisting of five Hon'ble Judges of this Court in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra) while approving minority view in Dharambir v. State of Haryana, 2005(2) Law Herald (P&H) (FB) 723, opined as under:- “27. To conclude, it can safely be said that there can never be any hard and fast category which can be prescribed to enable the Court to exercise its power under Section 482, of the Cr.P.C. The only principle that can be laid down is the one which has been incorporated in the Section itself, i.e., “to prevent abuse of the process of any Court” or “to secure the ends of justice”. Criminal Misc.-M No. 28263 of 2011 (4) 28. In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney Versus Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, (1980) 1 S.C.C. 63, Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the essence of compromise in the following words:- “The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.” The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every 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. 29. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 30. 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 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. Criminal Misc.-M No. 28263 of 2011 (5) 31. The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non- compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice. 32. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para-meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restraint. The Court is vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.” Compromise in modern society is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. As observed by Krishna Iyer J., the finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion. Inherent power of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not limited to matrimonial cases alone. Criminal Misc.-M No. 28263 of 2011 (6) The Court has wide powers to quash the proceedings even in non- compoundable offences in order to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice, notwithstanding bar under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Exercise of power in a given situation will depend on facts of each case. The duty of the Court is not only to decide a lis between the parties after a protracted litigation but it is a vital and extra-ordinary instrument to maintain and control social order. Resolution of dispute by way of compromise between two warring groups should be encouraged unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of society or would promote savagery, as held in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra). Keeping in view the enunciation of law as referred to above and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case, once the matter has been compromised between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the prosecution. Accordingly, FIR No. 22 dated 18.6.2011, registered under Sections 406, 498-A IPC and Sections 3, 5, 6, of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, at Police Station Women Cell, Jalandhar, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners. The petition is disposed of accordingly. 14.10.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge