Crl. Misc. No.M-34348 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-34348 of 2010 Date of Decision: 28.01.2011 Jatinder Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. Vakeel Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2/complainant. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing/setting aside the FIR No.126 dated 18.07.2008 under Sections 498-A, 120-B IPC (subsequently added Section 307 IPC) registered at Police Station Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise dated 13.10.2010 effected between the parties. The petitioner No.1 is the husband, petitioner No.2 is the Crl. Misc. No.M-34348 of 2010 2 father-in-law and the petitioner No.4 is the sister-in-law of respondent No.2 and petitioner No.3 is a relative of petitioners No.1, 2 and 4. An affidavit has also been filed by the complainant-respondent/Amandeep kaur affirming the factum of compromise. It is stated by her that she has no objection, if the proceedings against the present petitioners are quashed. There is no dispute that the matter has been compromised and the compromise is genuine. Normally this Court would not interfere or quash the proceedings under Section 307 IPC, however, the facts and circumstances have moved the Court to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C and accept the compromise in the peculiar situation of the present case. The FIR, herein, is an outcome of a matrimonial dispute between the families. As already stated, petitioner No.1 is the husband, petitioner No.2 is the father-in-law and the petitioner No.4 is the sister-in- law of respondent No.2 and petitioner No.3 is a relative of petitioners No.1, 2 and 4. A perusal of the said compromise shows that with the intervention of the respectable, the matter has been compromised and the petitioners, as well as, respondent No.2 have decided to finish all their cases against each other and to take divorce from each other. It has further been decided that the petitioners would pay Rs.5.50 lacs to the respondent No.2 in lieu of past, present and future maintenance, including all expenses. It has further been agreed that the petitioners would file a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of First Information Report and the subsequent proceedings and in the said proceedings, the respondent No.2 would make a statement, stating that the First Information Report and all subsequent proceedings be quashed. It has further been stated that the said compromise has been entered into voluntarily with their sweet will and without any pressure from any side. The said compromise is genuine and bonafide and would help in permanently resolving the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. Crl. Misc. No.M-34348 of 2010 3 Even otherwise, Section 307 IPC was subsequently added. At the time of grant of bail vide order dated 06.01.2010, it is specifically noticed by the Court that the said injuries were superficial burns, which is also evident from the Medical Report, which does not indicate any forcible burning. By virtue of the compromise, all the disputes have been resolved. In case, the said compromise is not accepted, the other compromise qua the final settlement with respect to divorce and maintenance will also fail and the unending matrimonial litigation will continue, resulting into further enmity and will come in the way of the future settlement of the victim herself. The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that 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 not only in matrimonial discord but others as well, such compromise deserves to be accepted. It is further held as under :- “ 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.” In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as Crl. Misc. No.M-34348 of 2010 4 under :- “ We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana reported as 2003(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 888 while relying on the judgment titled as Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. [(1998) 5 SCC 749], that this Court with reference to Bhajan Lal' case observed that the guidelines laid therein as to where the court will exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code could not be inflexible or laying rigid formula to be followed by the court. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is well settled that these powers have no limits. Of course, where there is more power, it becomes necessary of exercise utmost care and caution while invoking such powers. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. [(1998) 1 SCC 692], it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Crl. Misc. No.M-34348 of 2010 5 Court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings. This Court in the case of Smt. Sobha Mehra and another vs. State of Haryana and another reported as 2004(1) RCR(Criminal) 136 in somewhat similar circumstances after taking into consideration the law, quashed the FIR under Section 307 IPC by holding in paras 6 and 8 as under :- “6. Mr. R.S. Cheema, learned senior counsel has argued that although the offences under section 307 IPC are not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C but in cases where such like offences are attached with the matrimonial disputes, the courts could always follow the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, 2003(2) RCR 888. According to the learned counsel, the basic rationale of the judgment in B.S. Joshi's case (supra) is to rehabilitate the parties to matrimonial disputes for a smooth future life. According to the learned counsel, the marriage in this case was only few months old and the parties can look for other partners and can live in peace and harmony, which would further advance the social justice. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on two judgments of this Court in the cases of Ram Dayal and others v. State of Punjab, Crl. Misc. No.40294-M of 2003, decided on 3.11.2003 and Sunil Aggarwal and others v. State of Punjab and others, Crl. Misc. No.47194-M of 2003, decided on 14.10.2003. According to the learned counsel in both the cases beside accusation constituting offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, other offences like Section 313 IPC were also involved. Despite that this Court has quashed those FIRs although Section 320 Cr.P.C does not permit compounding of such offences. 7. xxx xxx xxx Crl. Misc. No.M-34348 of 2010 6 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the allegations made in the first information report, I am of the considered view that there is no possibility of rehabilitating this marriage by uniting petitioner No.2 with the complainant-respondent No.2. The marriage appears to have broken irretrievably. The parties have amicable settled all their disputes and Stridhan etc. appears to have been given by petitioner No.2 to complainant-respondent No.2. In addition, a demand draft of Rs.5 lacs has been handed over to the complainant-respondent No.2 in Court. It is, thus, evident that allegations under Section 307 IPC were intimately connected with the matrimonial dispute. The police is also preparing a cancellation report. Therefore, quashing of first information report would be conducive for the rehabilitation of petitioner No.2 independently and the complainant-respondent No.2 can also start a new life. Petitioner no.2 as well as complainant are young and both of them are at the threshold of their career. They can always find a better and suitable life partner. If the proceedings in the first information report continue, their harassment and agony would increase manifold. The policy of law as well as the spirit of judgment of the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi's case (supra) is to facilitate the rehabilitation of the young couples because it advances the social justice. It also strengthens the institution of marriage and family. All of them can live their own life according to their own wishes. It is often said that matrimonial life is an emotional bond which can hardly be sorted out by dry logic. Once the logic enters the matrimonial home, it is entry of a bull in the china shop, resulting into arguments and fight which breaks away everything. Therefore, in order to advance the social justice and to avoid any unnecessary harassment and agony to the parties, the first information report and the subsequent proceedings are liable to be quashed. While applying the test in the present case, there is no impediment in the way of the Court to accept the compromise and quash Crl. Misc. No.M-34348 of 2010 7 the proceedings, as well as, the FIR for peace and harmony which in turn shall help the parties to move on in life. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.126 dated 18.07.2008 under Sections 498-A, 120-B IPC (subsequently added Section 307 IPC) registered at Police Station Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 28.01.2011 JUDGE gurpreet