Crl. Misc. No. M-7597 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-7597 of 2011 Date of decision : 05.04.2011 Ranjit Singh and another .....Petitioners versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. K.S. Malik-I, Advocate for the petitioner. Sh. P.S. Virk, D.A.G., Haryana for the respondent. **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.794 dated 08.11.2009 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 498A/406/506 of IPC, registered at Police Station City Rohtak, District Rohtak and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 19.01.2011, joint statement dated 19.01.2011 and the order passed by ld. JMIC, Rohtak dated 20.01.2011 (Annexures P2 to P4). Counsel for the State has appeared and states that he has no information regarding the compromise effected between the parties. The statements have been recorded by the Magistrate on 20.01.2011 whereby both the petitioners were present in person along with their advocates. As per statements made before the Magistrate, the compromise has been effected between the parties with the intervention of the Trainced Mediator in Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Rohtak. They stated that the matter Crl. Misc. No. M-7597 of 2011 -2- has been amicably settled as per the terms and conditions mentioned in Annexure C-1. Statement of petitioner No. 2 has also been recorded separately to the effect that the matter has been fully compromised between the parties. It has been further stated by Hardeep Kaur that the proceedings initiated by her under Section 125 Cr. P.C. Were dismissed as withdrawn. As per the compromise dated 19.01.2011, the parties were married to each other according to Hindu Rites and ceremonies on12.12.2007 but they could not adjust with each other and now they are living separately since 25.09.2009. As per the terms of the compromise, the parties will file a petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce with mutual consent. Ranjit Singh petitioner No. 1 will deposit an amount of Rs. 25000/- in the Court on account of full and final settlement of dowry articles including past, present and future maintenance of petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 2 is also ready to withdraw the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C and also had no objection for quashing of F.I.R/Criminal proceedings pending before CJM Rohtak. After dissolution of marriage, the parties will not claim any relief against each other. It has further been stated by petitioner No. 2 that she will withdraw the said amount of Rs. 25,000/- from the Court only after withdrawing application under Section 125 Cr.P.C passing of decree of divorce and quashing of F.I.R/Criminal Proceedings. On 20.01.2011, statements were made and she (petitioner NO. 2) has withdrawn the said amount. Today, the parties are present in Court and were duly identified by their counsel. The petition has been filed by both of them and this Court is of the view that compromise has been effected between the parties in a fair manner. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-7597 of 2011 -3- 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-7597 of 2011 -4- 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. 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 :- Crl. Misc. No. M-7597 of 2011 -5- “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 kidney and the appellant's mother is suffering from multiple ailments and is virtually bed-ridden.” Crl. Misc. No. M-7597 of 2011 -6- 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.794 dated 08.11.2009 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 498A/406/506 of IPC, registered at Police Station City Rohtak, District Rohtak is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE April 05, 2011 G.Arora