CRM No. M 1670 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 1670 of 2011 Date of decision: 02.02.2011 Harcharan Singh and others ........ Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Ms G K Mann, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Sidarth Sarup, DAG, Haryana Mr. Tarurag Gaur, Advocate for respondent- complainant -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 97 dated 03.12.2010 under Sections 307, 326, 452, 324, 498-A, 506, 148, 149, PC, PS Ramdass, District Amritsar, which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 21.12.2010 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that the CRM No. M 1670 of 2011 2 aforesaid FIR was registered n the statement of respondent No. 2. Petitioner No. 2 is married to the daughter of respondent No. 2. A fight took place between the family of petitioner No. 2 and the daughter of respondent No. 2 Harcharan Singh is the brother of Prabhjit Singh i.e son-in-law of respondent No. 2. Harcharan Singh caused injury to the nephew of respondent No. 2 i.e. the cousin of the wife of petitioner No. 2. Normally, this Court would not have entertained the quashing for an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is moved to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the said FIR on the basis of compromise. The aforesaid FIR is an outcome of the matrimonial dispute between the parties. As per the compromise, daughter of respondent No. 2 is now happily residing with her husband in her in-laws house. Respondent No. 2, who is present in Court stated that he wanted to see his daughter settled in the house of her in-laws. He further stated that his daughter is happily residing with her husband and, therefore, it would be better if the said FIR is quashed. Petitioner No. 2, respondent No. 2 and injured - Kuljeet Singh as well as daughter of respondent No. 2 are present in Court today and are looking visibly happy together. They have also filed their respective affidavits. In his affidavit, complainant Dalbir Singh, has stated that after intervention of the respectables, the matter has been settled. He has no objection if the said FIR is quashed. Similarly, in their affidavits, Kuljeet Singh-injured and Bhagwant Kaur-daughter of respondent No. 2 have also stated that the said compromise has been arrived at voluntarily CRM No. M 1670 of 2011 3 and without any pressure. The said compromise having arrived at between the parties would help in permanently resolving the matrimonial dispute between petitioner No. 2 and the daughter of respondent No.2 as well as their families. The said compromise will also save the marriage and, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the said FIR. The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that 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 not only in matrimonial discord but others as well, such compromise deserves to be accepted. It is further held as under :- “ 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.” In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008 (4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under:- “ We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a CRM No. M 1670 of 2011 4 purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana reported as 2003(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 888 while relying on the judgment titled as Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. [(1998) 5 SCC 749], that this Court with reference to Bhajan Lal' case observed that the guidelines laid therein as to where the court will exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code could not be inflexible or laying rigid formula to be followed by the court. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is well settled that these powers have no limits. Of course, where there is more power, it becomes necessary of exercise utmost care and caution while invoking such powers. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. [(1998) 1 SCC 692], it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the CRM No. M 1670 of 2011 5 Court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings. This Court in the case of Smt. Sobha Mehra and another vs. State of Haryana and another reported as 2004(1) RCR(Criminal) 136 in somewhat similar circumstances after taking into consideration the law, quashed the FIR under Section 307 IPC by holding in paras 6 and 8 as under:- “6. Mr. R.S. Cheema, learned senior counsel has argued that although the offences under section 307 IPC are not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C but in cases where such like offences are attached with the matrimonial disputes, the courts could always follow the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, 2003(2) RCR 888. According to the learned counsel, the basic rationale of the judgment in B.S. Joshi's case (supra) is to rehabilitate the parties to matrimonial disputes for a smooth future life. According to the learned counsel, the marriage in this case was only few months old and the parties can look for other partners and can live in peace and harmony, which would further advance the social justice. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on two judgments of this Court in the cases of Ram Dayal and others v. State of Punjab, Crl. Misc. No.40294-M of 2003, decided on 3.11.2003 and Sunil Aggarwal and others v. State of Punjab and others, Crl. Misc. No.47194-M of 2003, decided on 14.10.2003. According to the learned counsel in both the cases beside accusation constituting offences under CRM No. M 1670 of 2011 6 Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, other offences like Section 313 IPC were also involved. Despite that this Court has quashed those FIRs although Section 320 Cr.P.C does not permit compounding of such offences. 7. xxx xxx xxx 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the allegations made in the first information report, I am of the considered view that there is no possibility of rehabilitating this marriage by uniting petitioner No.2 with the complainant-respondent No.2. The marriage appears to have broken irretrievably. The parties have amicable settled all their disputes and Stridhan etc. appears to have been given by petitioner No.2 to complainant-respondent No.2. In addition, a demand draft of Rs.5 lacs has been handed over to the complainant-respondent No.2 in Court. It is, thus, evident that allegations under Section 307 IPC were intimately connected with the matrimonial dispute. The police is also preparing a cancellation report. Therefore, quashing of first information report would be conducive for the rehabilitation of petitioner No.2 independently and the complainant-respondent No.2 can also start a new life. Petitioner no.2 as well as complainant are young and both of them are at the threshold of their career. They can always find a better and suitable life partner. If the proceedings in the first information report continue, their harassment and agony would increase manifold. The policy of law as well as the spirit of judgment of the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi's case (supra) is to facilitate the rehabilitation of the young couples because it advances the social justice. It also strengthens the institution of marriage and family. All of them can live their own life according to their own wishes. It is often said that matrimonial life is an CRM No. M 1670 of 2011 7 emotional bond which can hardly be sorted out by dry logic. Once the logic enters the matrimonial home, it is entry of a bull in the china shop, resulting into arguments and fight which breaks away everything. Therefore, in order to advance the social justice and to avoid any unnecessary harassment and agony to the parties, the first information report and the subsequent proceedings are liable to be quashed. The facts of the present case are even better. The parties herein have decided to resolve their matrimonial dispute and decided to live together. Rather, the parties are already residing happily together. Quashing of the FIR will bring the two families together and will also help them to sink their differences. It would also be good for the future of the children. Forgive and forget is the watchword of a happy married life. The parties having decided to live peacefully together will rather result in the advancement of the social justice and promote peace and harmony. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 97 dated 03.12.2010 under Sections 307, 326, 452, 324, 498-A, 506, 148, 149, PC, PS Ramdass, District Amritsar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 02.02.2011 mohan