Criminal Misc. No. M-17997 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.11266 of 2011 and Criminal Misc. No. M-17997 of 2010 Date of decision:- 28.02.2011 Parikshit Sharma and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. N.D. Achint, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S. Virk, DAG Haryana for respondent No.1-State. Mr. S.K. Biriwal, Advocate for the applicant- respondent No.2. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) Criminal Misc. No.11266 of 2011 Application is allowed and Special Power of Attorney on behalf of respondent No.2 has been placed on record. Criminal Misc. No. M-17997 of 2010 The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No.7 dated 13.1.2010 under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 and 504 IPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, registered at Police Station Sector 40, Gurgaon (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise dated 15.5.2010 (Annexure P-2). Contends that the marriage between petitioner No.1 with Criminal Misc. No. M-17997 of 2010 -2- respondent No.2 was took place in Jhansi (Uttar Pradesh) and thereafter they start living at Banglore. Unfortunately the compatibility between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was not upto the mark and due to dispute they separated on 13.5.2008. On 13.1.2010, respondent No.2 had lodged a complaint against the petitioners, on the basis of which FIR in question was registered against the petitioners. Thereafter, with the intervention of respectables and friends of respondent No.2, the matter was amicable settled. A mutual divorce petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act was filed in the Family Court, Jhansi. After filing of the said petition, decree of divorce has been granted on 18.12.2010. As per compromise, the petitioner offered to pay Rs.10,50,000/- to respondent No.2 towards permanent maintenance and that payment was accepted by respondent No.2 towards full and final settlement. As per reply filed by respondent No.2 after the decree of divorce was granted, a compromise was arrived at between the parties and respondent No.2-complainant has no objection if the FIR in question alongwith consequential proceedings are quashed against the petitioners. As per affidavit dated 20.11.2010 respondent No.2 has authorised Mr. S.K. Biriwal, Advocate by way of Special Power of Attorney to make statement before this Court that she has no objection if the FIR in question alongwith subsequent proceedings are quashed qua petitioners. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-17997 of 2010 -3- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-17997 of 2010 -4- 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, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford.” Consequently, in view of 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 in view of Special Power of Atrorney (Annexure R-2/1), FIR No.7 dated 13.1.2010 under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 and 504 IPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Criminal Misc. No. M-17997 of 2010 -5- Act, 1961, registered at Police Station Sector 40, Gurgaon is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. February 28, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE