Crl. Misc. No. M-12213 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-12213 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 09.05.2011 Vinod Kumar @ Vicky and others .....Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the petitioners. Sh. P.S. Virk, D.A.G., Haryana for respondent No. 1. Mr. Ranjit Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 & 3. **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.234 dated 14.08.2006 under Sections 498-A/406/506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Saran, District Faridabad (Annexure P1) and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom , on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3), entered between the parties Brief facts of the case are that marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 was solemnized on 06.12.2005 but due to some difference between the parties, the present F.I.R was lodged by the father of respondent No. 2. After investigation of the matter, the challan was presented against the petitioners and accordingly the charges were framed. Copy of charge sheet dated 07.06.2008 is annexed with the petition as Annexure P2. Crl. Misc. No. M-12213 of 2011 (O&M) -2- The case is now pending in the Court of JMIC Faridabad and is fixed for the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. During the pendency of trial, parties have entered into compromise and have agreed that the parties shall again reside together. Copy of the compromise deed is Annexure P3. Respondent No.2 and 3 appeared through their counsel and admitted the factum of compromise and stating that due to intervention of respectable and some elders in both the families, the disputes have been resolved mutually with the petitioners and now they are having having no objection if the FIR in question with consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed . Respondent No.3 is present in the Court and has identified by her counsel. The compromise is voluntarily and without any pressure. As per compromise/mutual agreement settlement (Annexure P-3 ), both the parties have settled the dispute amicably as per the conditions recorded in the compromise. Counsel for the respondent does not dispute the genuineness of the compromise (Annexure P-3) annexed with the petition. An affidavit of the complainant i.e respondent No. 2 has also been filed in the Court today, which is taken on record as Annexure A-1. As per this affidavit, with the intervention of respectables, a compromise has been effected between the parties. As per the compromise for the future betterment and peaceful life, the complainant has no objection if the F.IR. in question is quashed against the petitioners. All the disputes between the complainant daughter and her husband i.e petitioner No. 1 has been settled and they decided to live together. 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-12213 of 2011 (O&M) -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 finest hour of justice”. Disputes Crl. Misc. No. M-12213 of 2011 (O&M) -4- 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 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 :- Crl. Misc. No. M-12213 of 2011 (O&M) -5- “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 Courts in the case of 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 No.234 dated 14.08.2006 under Sections 498-A/406/506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Saran, District Faridabad (Annexure P1) is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. Accordingly, the petitions stand disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 09, 2011 G.Arora