Crl. Misc. No.M-6347 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-6347 of 2011 Date of Decision : 12.05.2011 Sarwan Lal and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents Crl. Misc. No.M-8918 of 2011 Sarwan Lal and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents Crl. Misc. No.M-5860 of 2011 Varun Babbar and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. M.S. Sachdev, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Brar, A.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Advocate for Mr. G.S. Gill, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Crl. Misc. No.M-6347 of 2011 2 ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of Crl. Misc. No.M-6347 of 2011, Crl. Misc. No.M-8918 of 2011 and Crl. Misc. No.M-5860 of 2011 as the parties, in all the cases, are same. In Crl. Misc. No.M-6347 of 2011, prayer is for quashing of FIR No.43 dated 25.03.2010 under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC at Police Station Division No.5, Jalandhar, which was registered by Komal alias Meena against Sarwan Lal (father-in-law), Sukhjinder Kaur (mother-in-law) and Sandeep Kumar (husband). In Crl. Misc. No.M-8918 of 2011, prayer is for quashing of the cross case registered in FIR No.124 dated 06.08.2009 under Sections 354, 356, 341, 323/34 IPC at Police Station Kartarpur, Jalandhar vide a rapat under Sections 324, 323, 148, 149 and 307 IPC which was registered by Suman Babbar, aunt of Komal against father-in-law and mother-in-law of Komal. In Crl. Misc. No.M-5860 of 2011, prayer is for quashing of FIR No.124 dated 06.08.2009 under Sections 323, 324, 148 and 149 IPC (later on added Section 307 IPC) at Police Station Kartarpur, District Jalandhar, which was registered by Sarwan Lal-father-in-law and Sandeep Kumar- husband of Komal against Komal’s aunt Suman Babbar and her other close relatives. The respondent/complainant-Komal alias Meena in Crl. Misc. No.M-6347 of 2011 was married to one Sandeep Kumar on 13.07.2003. Thereafter, a dispute arose between the parties which led to filing of both Civil and Criminal litigations against each other and their families. As per the compromise, the following litigations are pending between each other in various courts ; 1. A petition under Section 24 of the Guardian & Crl. Misc. No.M-6347 of 2011 3 Wards Act filed as “Komal alias Meena vs. Sandeep Kumar” pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar. 2. A criminal case titled as State vs. Sarwan Lal etc. pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar pertaining to case FIR No.124 dated 06.08.2009, Police Station Kartarpur under Sections 354, 356, 341, 323, 34 IPC. 3. A criminal case titled as State vs. Varun Babbar etc. pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar pertaining to case FIR No.124 dated 06.08.2009 registered at Police Station Kartarpur under Sections 307, 356, 323, 324 IPC. 4. A criminal case titled as State vs. Sandeep Kumar etc. pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar pertaining to case FIR No.43 dated 25.03.2010 registered at Police Station Division No.5, Jalandhar under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. 5. A petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C titled as Komal alias Meena vs. Sandeep Kumar pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar. 6. A quashing petition bearing Crl. Misc. No.30063-M of 2010 titled as Sukhjinder Kaur and others vs. State of Punjab and Komal alias Meena pending in this Court. However, with the intervention of respectable, relatives and Crl. Misc. No.M-6347 of 2011 4 friends, a compromise has been effected between the parties. Compromise deed is placed on record as Annexure P-2. The same compromise has been placed on record in the connected cases as well. Affidavits of Komal alias Meena in Crl. Misc. No.M-6347 of 2011, Suman Babbar in Crl. Misc. No.M-8918 of 2011, Sarwan Lal and Sandeep Kumar in Crl. Misc. No.M- 5860 of 2011 have been filed. As per the said affidavits, the respondent- complainant, in each one of them, have no objection, if the FIR, in question, is quashed. No doubt, the FIR No.124 dated 06.08.2009 at Police Station Kartarpur, Jalandhar vide rapat entered in the FIR under Sections 324, 323, 148, 149 and 307 IPC was registered by Suman Babbar, aunt of Komal against father-in-law and mother-in-law of Komal is under Section 307 IPC. However, the same, as is evident from the above, arises out of the matrimonial dispute. This Court would not have normally entertain the quashing for an offence punishable under Section 307 on the basis of compromise. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is moved to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to accept the compromise. In case, the compromise for quashing of the cross case under Section 307 IPC in the FIR No.124 as above is not accepted, the entire compromise qua all other disputes between the two warring families by way of matrimonial alliance will fall through. 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 Crl. Misc. No.M-6347 of 2011 5 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 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 emotional bond which can hardly be sorted out by dry logic. Once the logic enters the matrimonial home, it is Crl. Misc. No.M-6347 of 2011 6 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 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 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, Crl. Misc. No.M-6347 of 2011 7 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 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. The matter has been compromised. In view of the above settled position of law, it would be just and proper to quash the FIR for peace, harmony and thus allow the parties to move on in life. Crl. Misc. No.M-6347 of 2011 8 Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed and the following FIRs stand quashed. (i) FIR No.43 dated 25.03.2010 under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC at Police Station Division No.5, Jalandhar, which was registered by Komal alias Meena against Sarwan Lal (father-in-law), Sukhjinder Kaur (mother-in-law) and Sandeep Kumar (husband) in Crl. Misc. No.M-6347 of 2011. (ii) Cross case registered in FIR No.124 dated 06.08.2009 under Sections 354, 356, 341, 323/34 IPC at Police Station Kartarpur, Jalandhar vide a rapat entered in the above FIR under Sections 324, 323, 148, 149 and 307 IPC which was registered by Suman Babbar, aunt of Komal against father-in-law and mother-in-law of Komal in Crl. Misc. No.M-8918 of 2011. (iii)FIR No.124 dated 06.08.2009 under Sections 323, 324, 148 and 149 IPC (later on added Section 307 IPC) at Police Station Kartarpur, District Jalandhar, which was registered by Sarwan Lal-father-in-law and Sandeep Kumar- husband of Komal against Komal’s aunt Suman Babbar and her other close relatives in Crl. Misc. No.M-5860 of 2011. Allowed as above. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 12.05.2011 JUDGE gurpreet