Criminal Misc. No. M- 6269 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 6269 of 2011 Date of decision:- 08.03.2011 Jugal Kishore Seth ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.2-Complainant. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 215 dated 16.5.2010 under Sections 406,498-A,420,120-B IPC and Sections 465,468 and 471 IPC (added later on), registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). As per FIR, marriage between Vivek Seth, who is a British Citizen, with Ms. Kanu Setia was solemnized on 30.4.2005. Due to some misunderstanding, the marriage broke down and a divorce petition was filed on 31.10.2008 by Vivek Seth in U.K. The same was consented by Ms. Kanu Setia and the marriage was dissolved by the Dudely County Court vide its order dated 25.3.2009. An FIR No.215 dated 16.5.2010 was registered at Civil Lines, Amritsar against the petitioner and his family members. During pendency of the Criminal Misc. No. M- 6269 of 2011 -2- investigations of this FIR, parties entered into compromise and this petition was filed for getting the FIR in question quashed with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Compromise (Annexure P-2) was effected between the parties on 24.2.2011. As per compromise the first party had agreed to pay a lump sum of Rs.35,00,000/- to Kanu Setia as full and final settlement towards alimony and all other claims towards the said matrimonial alliance. Rs.30,00,000/- had been deposited by way of bank draft in the name of Registrar, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. No. M-17631 of 2010. Further an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was to be paid in the form of demand draft in the name of Ms. Kanu Setia at the time of disposal of the present criminal miscellaneous petition. A compromise has been arrived at between the parties due to intervention of respectables and the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise. On notice, counsel for respondent No.2 has placed on record affidavit of complainant Gurinder Singh Setia in the present petition, who is also present in the Court and has been duly identified by his counsel. As per this affidavit, Vivek Seth and his daughter Kanu Setia have got divorced from the Courts at United Kingdom. They have compromised the matter by the intervention of relatives and friends and have resolved all the disputes and differences between them. Original compromise, effected between the parties is taken on record as (Annexure A-1). As per compromise, an amount of 35,00,000/- is to be paid to Kanu Setia by the petitioners. During the course of proceedings in Criminal Misc. No.M-17631 of 2010, an amount of Rs.30,00,000 by way of a bank draft was deposited in the name of the Registrar, Punjab and Haryana High Court and in terms of the compromise deed, the said amount was to be released in favour of Ms. Kanu Setia. Affidavit on behalf of Ms. Kanu Setia, who is also present in the Criminal Misc. No. M- 6269 of 2011 -3- Court, has also been filed. She is identified by her counsel. As per her affidavit, the matter has been compromised between the parties due to intervention of friends and relations. She has got a decree of divorce from the Court of United Kingdom. After going through the contents of the case, this Court is of the view that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties in a just and fair manner and a direction is given to the Registrar, Punjab and Haryana High Court to release the amount Rs.30,00,000/-, which was deposited in his favour by way of a bank draft during the proceedings pending in Criminal Misc. No. M- 17631 of 2010, in the name of Ms. Kanu Setia, immediately. Rs.5,00,000/- has already been given to counsel for respondent No.2 in the Court on 07.3.2011 by way of a cheque. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 6269 of 2011 -4- 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 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. Criminal Misc. No. M- 6269 of 2011 -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.” Consequently, in view of the affidavits filed by complainant- Gurinder Singh Setia and his daughter Kanu Setia and as per 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), FIR No. 215 dated 16.5.2010 under Sections 406,498-A,420,120-B IPC and Sections 465,468 and 471 IPC (added later on), registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. March 08, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE