Criminal Misc. No. M- 13012 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 13012 of 2010 Date of decision:- 14.03.2011 Vikram Chauhan and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. L.M. Gulati, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 242 dated 11.10.2008 under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Islamabad, District Amritsar (Annexure P- 1) on the basis of compromise. As per FIR, marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 16.2.2008 but due to some differences between the parties, they started living separately. This FIR had been registered against the present petitioners on 11.10.2008. No child was born out of this wedlock. Ultimately, with the intervention of respectables, they decided to get their marriage dissolved with their mutual consent. All matrimonial disputes and permanent alimony towards present, past and future was settled between the parties. A sum of Rs.9,00,000/- have been fixed for full and final settlement towards claims of respondent No.2. Criminal Misc. No. M- 13012 of 2010 -2- Notice of this criminal miscellaneous was given to the respondent. As per report of this office, notice was returned back with the report that respondent No.2 was not found present at the home and that notice was affixed on her door. Counsel for the petitioners placed on record judgment dated 16.10.2010 by which a mutual divorce decree has been passed by the Court of District Judge, Amritsar. Statements of Vikram Chauhan and statement of Sonam wife of Vikram Chauhan recorded on 16.10.2010. All these three documents have been taken on record as Mark-A1. As per statement made by the complainant on 16.10.2010, she has received remaining amount of Rs.4,50,000/- in the shape of demand draft drawn on Allahabad Bank bearing No.598405 dated 15.10.2010. Rs. 4,50,000/- had already been given to her on 13.4.2010. Statement recorded by Sonam on 13.4.2010 is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2. As per this statement, she has stated that both the parties have agreed not to file any case civil or criminal against each other. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide order dated 16.10.2010 passed by the District Judge, Amritsar, the marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 has been dissolved by decree of divorce. Statement of Vikram Chauhan was recorded, in which he states that he has paid the remaining amount of Rs.4,50,000/- to the complainant in the court vide demand draft towards full and final settlement. After going through the orders of the District Judge dated 16.10.2010 respondent No.2-Sonam has received Rs.9,00,000/- from petitioner No.1 towards full and final settlement of all her claims in respect of her permanent alimony, past, present and future. She has also received back all her dowry articles and other articles belonging to her and nothing is due against each other. Broad guidelines have been laid down by the Full Bench of this Criminal Misc. No. M- 13012 of 2010 -3- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 13012 of 2010 -4- 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. 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, Criminal Misc. No. M- 13012 of 2010 -5- 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 decree of divorce and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (supra) 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) and Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another (supra), FIR No. 242 dated 11.10.2008 under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Islamabad, District Amritsar, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. March 14, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE