Crl. Misc.No. M-3255 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc.No. M-3255 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.04.2011 Gaurav Wadhwa @ Hanny ......Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Surinder Sharma Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder Singh Brar, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.1-State **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.86 dated 17.08.2004 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 498-A/494/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Division No. 3, Jalandhar and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom Brief facts of the case are that petitioner No. 1 is a husband of respondent No. 2-complainant, petitioner No. 2 is father-in-law of respondent No. 2 and petitioner No. 3 is sister-in-law of respondent No. 2-omplainant. On 06.04.2002, the marriage of petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 2 was solemnized as per Hindu rites and ceremonies After marriage, both petitioner and complainant lived together for some time at Jalandhar and no child was born from this wedlock. Due to differences of opinion in temperaments, the parties could not put together for long and there remained frequent quarrels between the parties due to disparity of thoughts and ideas and both the parties are living separately from each other since 25.01.2004 and on the same date compromise was effected between the parties and as per Crl. Misc.No. M-3255 of 2011 (O&M) -2- settlement petitioner No. 1 was to pay a sum of ` 1,00,000/- towards permanent alimony of respondent No. 2 out of which respondent No. 2 had already received a sum of ` 40,000/- from petitioner No. 1 on 25.01.2004 itself. But due to some misunderstanding, the parties went in litigation against each other and various cases were filed by the parties against each other and inspite of the parties could not live together. In the above background, F.I.R was registered against the petitioners by respondent No. 2 During the pendency of trial, the parties have entered into compromise. As per the compromise (Annexure P-2), it has been agreed between the parties that they shall file a petition under Section 43-B of Hindu Marriage Act in the District, Jalandhar and as per the settlement, petitioner No. 1 will pay Rs. 1,10,000/- to the complainant towards her permanent alimony. Out of this amount, petitioner No. 1 will pay Rs.60,000/- to the complainant on the date of making first statement in the Court and the remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- will be paid to the complainant at the time of final statement in the Court. They have further agreed that the compromise has been effected between the parties with their free will and consent and without any pressure or undue influence from any quarter. In compliance of order dated 02.02.2011, District and Session Judge, Jalanhdar has forwarded the report of Judl. Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar. As per the report, both the parties appeared in the Court and got recorded their statements. Firstly, statements of respondent No.2, her father Bhushan Kumar Tandon and her mother Kusam have been recorded and they have stated categorically that they have effected the compromise with petitioner No. 1 and others i.e acused party and have filed petition u/s 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act which is pending in the Court of learned Additional District and Crl. Misc.No. M-3255 of 2011 (O&M) -3- Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. They have further submitted that now there is no dispute of any kind between the parties and they do not want to pursue the present case. They have also identified the signatures of compromise ExC1 effected between the parties. After this, statements of accused party have also been recorded and they have also suffered statements to the same effect as suffered by the complainant party. They have also identified the signatures of compromise ExC1 effected between the parties. As per report, the compromise effected between the parties is held to be valid and genuine. 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 Crl. Misc.No. M-3255 of 2011 (O&M) -4- 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 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. Crl. Misc.No. M-3255 of 2011 (O&M) -5- 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 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 Crl. Misc.No. M-3255 of 2011 (O&M) -6- 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), FIR No.86 dated 17.08.2004 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 498-A/494/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Division No. 3, Jalandhar is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE April 21, 2011 G.Arora