Crl. Misc. No. M-16958 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-16958 of 2010 Date of decision : 01.04.2011 Dinesh Kumar Wadhwa ......Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Sh. Rghbir Chaudhary, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab for respondent No. 1-State Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for respondent No. 2 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.314 dated 25.08.2009(Annexure P-1) under Sections 406, 498-A of IPC, registered at Police Station Tirpuri Town, Patiala and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 19.02.2010 (Annexure P-2). Before adverting in to the merits of the case, it would first be necessary to point out the contents of the F.I.R. The marriage of respondent No. 2/complainant was solemnised with the petitioner according to Hindu Rites and rituals. After marriage, respondent No. 2 came to her in-laws house at Sirhind and started living with her husband. During that time, the behaviour of the petitioner was cruel and shrewd due to non-receipt of dowry and not brought the car in marriage. So she was tortured every time Crl. Misc. No. M-16958 of 2010 -2- for not bringing sufficient dowry. The accused were demanding repeatedly Rs.2 lacs cash and car. As the complainant was unable to fulfill the above demands of the accused, so the accused were want to desert the complainant. On one day, the complainant was not feeling well and due to that she was unable to do the household work and accused No. 1 gave beatings to her and caused the mark on her body. It was further in the F.I.R that the complainant required operation of her disease but her in-laws flatly refused to get the operation done. Accused have further compelled the complainant to write the suicide note under dire threats and taken the sign of the complainant on blank papers. On opposing by the complainant, they have beatings to her. Due to this, complainant went to her maternal house. After the brother of the complainant demanded the dowry articles of her sister but the accused flatly refused to do so. In the above background, F.I.R was registered against the petitioner. However, during the pendency of the trial, both the parties arrived at a compromise with the intervention of the respectables and it has been mutually resolved that the dispute has been settled for all times to come and petitioner gave Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lacs) to the complainant on account of all articles of dowry, past, present and future maintenance and nothing will remain due now Counsel for the petitioner states that decree of divorce has been granted by Additional Sessions Judge, S.A.S Nagar (Mohali) on 26.02.2011. He has also supplied the photocopy of this order, which is taken on record as Annexue A.. As per this order, marriage between the parties has been dissolved and decreed of divorce has been passed with mutual consent and Crl. Misc. No. M-16958 of 2010 -3- parties were left to bear their own costs. As per the compromise (Annexure P2), the complainant received a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Apart from this, petitioner has paid Rs. 7000/- to the complainant for obtaining her educational certificates in duplicate from the concerned institute/school/college. Besides this, respondent No. 2 has also made a statement in the affidavit that she has resolved the matter with the petitioner. Counsel for respondent No. 2 appeared in the Court and filed an affidavit of the complainant to the effect that the compromise has been effected between the parties with the mutual consent, without any pressure or threat and in the presence of respectable to settle the dispute for all time to come. It has further been stated in the affidavit that respondent No. 2 that she does not want to proceed further with the present case and has no objection, if the above said F.I.R is cancelled or quashed. So, it appears that the compromise is voluntarily and without any pressure. Copy of compromise 19.02.2010 is annexed as Annexure P-2. As per the affidavit filed by respondent No. 2, the matter has been compromised and bears the signatures of the deponent and the same was reduced into writing with the consent of the complainant without any compulsion etc. The affidavit is taken on record as Annexure A-1. Learned State counsel, on instructions, from Head Constable Ram Karan has also informed this Court that matter between the parties has been settled and compromise has been effected. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-16958 of 2010 -4- 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-16958 of 2010 -5- 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 :- “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 Crl. Misc. No. M-16958 of 2010 -6- 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.” Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (supra), Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another (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 Crl. Misc. No. M-16958 of 2010 -7- No.314 dated 25.08.2009(Annexure P-1) under Sections 406, 498-A of IPC, registered at Police Station Tirpuri Town, Patiala is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE April 01, 2011 G.Arora