Crl.Misc.No.M-54854 of 2007 1 In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh. Decided on July 28,2008. Dharaminder Singh Chawla and others --- Petitioners vs. State (U.T.Chandigarh) and another ---Respondents. Present: Mr.ADS Sukhija,Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Ram Pal Verma,Advocate, for Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for U.T.Chandigarh. Mr.Rakesh Gupta,Advocate, for respondent No.2. Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 116 dated 26.5.2006, under Sections 406,498-A of IPC and 3,4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station.,Industrial Area, Chandigarh . According to the averments made in the complaint, petitioner No.1. was married to respondent No.2. on 14.2.1999 at Chandigarh, as per Sikh religious rites and ceremonies. There is no issue out of the wedlock. Due to temperamental differences, marriage could not survive . Therefore, the aforesaid FIR was got registered by respondent No.2 against the present petitioners alleging demand of dowry and cruelty. The petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the FIR on Crl.Misc.No.M-54854 of 2007 2 the basis of compromise between the parties, which is alleged to have taken place on 18.12.2007. The terms and conditions of the compromise are as under:- 1.That the parties to this deed are living separately from 26.4.2006 and also decided to live separately in future. 2.That the party No.1 shall pay Rs.17,00,000/- (Rupees seventeen lacs only) to party No.2 as permanent alimony. Out of this amount, Rs. 8,50,000/- (Rupees eight lacs fifty thousand only) is being paid by way of bank drafts No. 505231 dated 17.12.2007 for Rs.2,00,000/- issued by Canara Bank, Sector 17, Chandigarh in the name of party No.2 and also draft No. 743914 dated 17.12.2007 for Rs. 6,50,000/- issued by Punjab National Bank Sector 33, Chandigarh in the name of party No.2, to the second party at the time of signing of this compromise. Remaining amount of Rs.8,50,000/- shall be paid to the second party at the time of final statement in the mutual divorce petition before the concerned Court. 3. That party No.2 undertakes to not to claim any kind of maintenance or permanent alimony from party No. 1, for past, present and future under any provision of law. None of the parties will have any right in the property of each other. Party No.2 also undertakes to not to claim any right in the property of the family of party No.1. 4.That both the parties to this deed shall file petition under Section 13 (B) of Hindu Marriage Act before the Court at Crl.Misc.No.M-54854 of 2007 3 Chandigarh for mutual divorce and both the parties shall give their statement before the Court to get the decree of divorce by mutual consent. 5.That party No.2 undertakes that she will cooperative in the quashing of the FIR No.116 dated 26.5.2006 , PS Industrial Area, under Sections 406, 498-A of IPC and she will make the statement wherever it be needed and the second party will not oppose quashment by cooperating in making the statement in writing or otherwise before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and because of the compromise between parties, party No.2 is no longer interested in prosecution of first party, his mother and Massi or any one else relating to her matrimonial matter. All necessary papers shall be signed by the parties which ever are required to comply with this agreement/compromise to finish up the disputes. So both the parties shall help in finishing all litigation of civil ad criminal going on between them. 6.That after getting the decree of divorce each party shall be at liberty to get remarry as per his/her own will and wishes with any one else. 7.That no party will have right to initiate any proceedings either civil or criminal in future against each other or the family of each other. 8.That no party will back out from this compromise and in case party No.2 backs out from this compromise, then she Crl.Misc.No.M-54854 of 2007 4 will pay back the amount receipt through this compromise to party no.1 and she will be liable to prosecution for cheating etc. If the first party backs out of this compromise by not paying the remaining amount of Rs.,8,50,000/- he will be liable to be prosecuted for cheating. 9.That all the give and take has been settled and now nothing is due against party No.1. 10.That the parties to this deed have reached the compromise without any kind pressure, coercion or undue influence from any quarter as the matter is being patched up with the intervention of respectables. Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1. has already paid Rs. 8,50,000/- to respondent No.2-Harpriya Kaur and similar amount has been paid today in Court by way of draft No.745778 dated 26.7.2008 to her (respondent No.2). He has further submitted that since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and the complainant- respondent No.2. does not want to pursue with the present proceedings. The counsel for the petitioner has relied on the Full Bench judgment in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (2007-3) P.L.R. 439. While dealing with issue of quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise a Bench consisting of five Hon'ble Judges of this Court in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra) while approving minority view in Dharambir v. State of Haryana, 2005(2) Law Herald (P&H) (FB) 723, opined as under:- “27. To conclude, it can safely be said that there can never be Crl.Misc.No.M-54854 of 2007 5 any hard and fast category which can be prescribed to enable the Court to exercise its power under Section 482, of the Cr.P.C. The only principle that can be laid down is the one which has been incorporated in the Section itself, i.e., “to prevent abuse of the process of any Court” or “to secure the ends of justice”. 28. In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney Versus Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, (1980) 1 S.C.C. 63, Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the essence of compromise in the following words:- “The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.” 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. 29. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 30. 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 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 Crl.Misc.No.M-54854 of 2007 6 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. 31. 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. 32. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para-meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restraint. The Court is vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would Crl.Misc.No.M-54854 of 2007 7 promote savagery.” Compromise in modern society is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. As observed by Krishna Iyer J., the finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion. Inherent power of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not limited to matrimonial cases alone. The Court has wide powers to quash the proceedings even in non- compoundable offences in order to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice, notwithstanding bar under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Exercise of power in a given situation will depend on facts of each case. The duty of the Court is not only to decide a lis between the parties after a protracted litigation but it is a vital and extra-ordinary instrument to maintain and control social order. Resolution of dispute by way of compromise between two warring groups should be encouraged unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of society or would promote savagery, as held in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra). Keeping in view the enunciation of law as referred to above and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case, once the matter has been compromised between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the prosecution. Accordingly, FIR No.116 dated 26.5.2006 registered under Sections 406, 498-A of IPC and 3 ,4 of dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station, Industrial Area Chandigarh and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby ordered to be quashed. July 28,2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge