Criminal Misc.No. M-13156 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc.No. M-13156 of 2011 DECIDED ON : 23.5.2011. Nitin Mahajan and others Petitioners. VERSUS State of Punjab and another Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI. Present:- Mr.Arjun Lakhanpal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Gurinder Singh Brar,Addl.A.G.Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Sapan Dhir, Advocate, with Ms.Nisha Mahajan respondent No.2. RITU BAHRI,J. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of FIR No. 118 dated 30.10.2010 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 498-A, 406/506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Division No.1, Pathankot, District Gurdaspur and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 18.4.2011 Criminal Misc.No. M-13156 of 2011 2 (Annexure P-2). Undisputed facts are that the marriage of petitioner No.1 was solemnized with respondent No. 2 on 8.10.2009 as per Hindu rites and rituals. Due to individual differences, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 could not pull on together which has led to matrimonial discord. However, the matter has been amicably settled before the Mediation Centre on 18.4.2011 in Mediation Case No. 066 of 2011. The said settlement/agreement (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties has also been placed on record in this regard. In pursuance to the said settlement/agreement, a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs only) has been given as alimony in lump sum by the husband to the wife-Nisha. This amount is handed over by way of FDR issued by the Hindu Co-operative Bank, Pathankot dated 13.4.2011 bearing No. 206155. This FDR is issued in the name of Nisha. The parties have agreed that all the cases filed by them against each other shall be withdrawn and they will file a petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act. Respondent No.2 has put in appearance along with her counsel. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has placed on record the affidavit of respondent No.2 authenticating the factum of compromise. As per the said affidavit, an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- has been received by respondent No.2 in pursuance to the agreement/compromise arrived at between the parties in the Mediation Centre and the petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed by Criminal Misc.No. M-13156 of 2011 3 both the parties with mutual consent for dissolution of marriage. It is further submitted in the affidavit that respondent No.2 has no objection if F.I.R. in question is quashed. 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 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 Criminal Misc.No. M-13156 of 2011 4 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 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 Criminal Misc.No. M-13156 of 2011 5 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 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.” Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Criminal Misc.No. M-13156 of 2011 6 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (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.118 dated 30.10.2010(Annexure P-1) under Sections 498-A, 406/506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Division No.1, Pathankot, District Gurdaspur is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. This petition stands disposed of. ( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE 23.5.2011. Anoop