Crl. Misc. No. M-8478 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-8478 of 2011 Date of decision : 06.04.2011 Ram Dia ......Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, A.A.G, Haryana Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 2 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.195 dated 10.09.2010 under Sections 498-A/506/ 436/323 of IPC, registered at Police Station Madhuban, District Karnal (Annexure P1) and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise/proceedings dated 10.3.2011(Annexure P-2), before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Karnal Brief facts of the case are that the F.I.R was registered against the petitioner at the instance of respondent No. 2. As per the F.I.R, the marriage between the petitioner and complainant has solemnized about 40 years ago. Out of this wedlock, two daughter had born and the marriage of them has already solemnized and they have settled in their matrimonial house. Due to some minor dispute arose between petitioner and complainant and upon Crl. Misc. No. M-8478 of 2011 -2- instigation of foul role play by the nabourer, complainant got registered the F.I.R against the petitioner. During the pendency of the investigation, the matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Karnal by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal. On 10.03.2011, joint statements were made before Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Karnal to the effect that the compromise has been effected between the parties. They have further decided that they will now live happily married life and the petitioner shall not maltreat the complainant on any manner. Copy of compromise by way of joint statement Respondent No.2-complainant is present in the Court and has identified by his 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. Counsel for the respondent does not dispute the genuineness of the compromise/joint statement (Annexure P-2) annexed with the petition. As per affidavit filed by the complainant, the matter has been duly compromised before Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Karnal and respondent No. 2 has further no objection if the F.I.R. against the petitioner is quashed. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-8478 of 2011 -3- 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-8478 of 2011 -4- 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-8478 of 2011 -5- 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 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 cases of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (supra), 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), FIR No.195 dated 10.09.2010 under Sections 498-A/506/ 436/323 of IPC, registered at Police Station Madhuban, District Karnal (Annexure P1) is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. In view of the affidavit and joint statement of the parties, the petitions stand disposed of. April 06, 2011 (RITU BAHRI) G.Arora JUDGE