IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-1465 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 21.10.2009 Sanjay and others ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Haryana and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Vivek Khatri, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Ashok Kumar Jindal, AAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. The prayer in the present petition is for quashing of FIR No.189 dated 16.8.2004 under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC registered at Police Station Adampur, District Hisar on the basis of the compromise. Counsel for the petitioners contends that during the pendency of the present petition, complainant-respondent No.2-Kamlesh has since expired due to natural reasons. He contends that before her death, an agreement was entered into between the parties whereby petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 Kamlesh had agreed for a divorce by mutual consent. The order dated 5.12.2008 granting the prayer for decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. He refers to para 5 of the said order wherein it has been specifically mentioned that there has been an agreement between the parties, according to which the complainant has undertaken to withdraw the Crl.Misc.No.M-1465 of 2009 -2- complaint case filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against petitioner No.1 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Hissar as also to co- operate with petitioner No.1 Sanjay in getting FIR No.189 of 2004 (present FIR) quashed from this Court. Now, no claim of any nature whatsoever has been left against each other and both the parties have undertaken to abide by the conditions contained in the petition as also the agreement-cum- settlement which was placed on record as Exhibit C-1 of the Court. Counsel for the petitioners had further referred to Annexure P-3 order dated 8.12.2008 passed in a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. regarding the grant of maintenance preferred by respondent No.2 and her minor son against the petitioner. In the light of the agreement entered into between the parties, the statement of Smt.Kamlesh, respondent No.2- complainant was recorded before the Lok Adalat on 8.12.2008 where it was stated by her that she does not want to proceed further with the matter and accordingly, the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn and the file was consigned to records. He, on the basis of all these documents submits that the present FIR may be quashed in the light of the compromise so entered into between the parties. His further submission is that after the unfortunate death of respondent No.2, custody of the minor son, namely, Rohan has been handed over to petitioner No.1 Sanjay, and he is taking care of the child. On the other hand, counsel for the State submits that the official who had come to Court had verified that the complainant-respondent No.2 Kamlesh had died owing to her illness. He, however, is unable to make any statement with regard to the fact as to whether a compromise has been Crl.Misc.No.M-1465 of 2009 -3- entered into between the parties. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. A perusal of the documents which have been attached along with the present petition leaves no manner of doubt that a compromise was indeed entered into between the parties. This can very well be asserted on the basis of para 5 of the order dated 5.12.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-01, (Central) Delhi which reads as follows:- “5. The record also reveals that the petitioners have settled all their claims and disputes with regard to dowry, istridhan, maintenance-present, past and future and permanent alimony etc. in respect of the petitioner No.2 as also the minor son of the petitioners in her custody including any amount towards maintenance pendentelite as awarded in her favour against the petitioner No.1 in the instant petition for a total sum of Rs.5,20,000/- payable on the part of the petitioner No.1 to the petitioner No.2 vide agreement cum settlement dated 21.10.2008 arrived at between them in this regard which is Ex.C-1 (in the 1st motion petition) duly signed by both them on its each page, which amount stands paid on the part of the petitioner No.1 to the petitioner No.2, in full and final settlement of all their claims. It has been agreed between them that the custody of the minor son namely Rohan Chauhan shall remain with the petitioner No.2/Mother and the petitioner No.1/father shall not claim his custody Crl.Misc.No.M-1465 of 2009 -4- in future but he shall have the visitation rights to meet the said child as per convenience of the petitioners. The petitioner No.2 has undertaken to withdraw the complaint case filed u/s 125 Cr.P.C., against the petitioner no.1 pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hissar as also to cooperate with the petitioner No.1 in getting the FIR No.189/04 u/s 498A/406 IPC of PS Adampur, Distt.Hissar, Haryana quashed from the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. Now no claim of any nature whatsoever has been left against each other. Both the petitioners have undertaken to abide by the terms and conditions contained in the petition as also the agreement cum settlement Ex.C1 (in the 1st motion petition). Their petition is Ex.P1.” Further a perusal of Annexure P-3 i.e. order dated 8.12.2008 further fortifies the assertion of the fact that there was a compromise. The said order reads as follows:- “File taken up under the project Mega Lok Adalat. The petitioner has made a statement that she does not want to proceed further. Heard. In view of the statement made by the petitioner, the instant petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. File be consigned to record room.” In view of the above, it would be in the interest of justice that Crl.Misc.No.M-1465 of 2009 -5- the FIR in question and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom be quashed so that the ends of justice are duly served. A Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, while discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non-compoundable offence(s), has held as under:- “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 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. 29. 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 Crl.Misc.No.M-1465 of 2009 -6- of law and to secure the ends of justice.” Therefore, in view of the discussion above, since the parties have amicably settled the matter, which is otherwise in the interest of justice and appears to have been effected to promote peace and harmony amongst the parties, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned FIR No.189 dated 16.8.2004 under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC registered at Police Station Adampur, District Hisar and all other consequent proceedings therein are quashed. October 21, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters Yes/No.