Criminal Misc. No. M- 9728 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 9728 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision:- 12.05.2011 Jabbar Singh & Others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and Others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. H.R.Nohria Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 159 dated 10.06.2005 under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, registered at Police Station City Moga-I, District Moga(Annexure P- 1) on the basis of compromise. As per contents of FIR, complainant Jaspreet Kaur was married to Jatinder Singh(petitioner No.3) resident of Ludhiana as per Sikh Rites and Rituals at Dhamija Palace, Moga. The shagun ceremony took place on 03.02.2004 in the house of Jatinder Singh and complainant's parents and relatives gave dowry more than their capacity. The golden ornaments including one bracelet, two rings, one set, one set topas, necklace, two sets and 13 rings were handed over by complainant's father to Jabbar Singh(petitioner No.1). The clothes worth Rs.1,75,000/- were also given to them. All these articles were given in the presence of Piara Singh Member Panchayat Nidhanwala, Surjit Singh, Darshan Singh, Jagdeep Singh, Sant Ram. The marriage was performed on 04.02.2004 at Moga. The Anand Karaj ceremony was performed at Gurudwara Moga. After marriage on 28.02.2004, complainant went to Cananda. Criminal Misc. No. M- 9728 of 2011(O&M) 2 After reaching Canada, she sponsored Jatinder Singh. Later on, Jatinder Singh went to Canada on 22.07.2004. After reaching to Canada, Jatinder Singh started taunting her that she had brought less dowry. Jatinder Singh pressured her to bring more dowry. Complainant's parents were also residing in Canada who accepted his demands and gave double bed, TV set, I C.D.Player, sofa set, Microwave and all other kitchen articles but Jatinder Singh was not still happy. On 14.11.2004, Jatinder Singh left her in Canada and came back to India. Complainant also came to India on 16.12.2004. When she reached her in laws home, she was told that Jatinder Singh has gone somewhere and was not interested to live with her as she had brought less dowry. Complainant requested her in-laws then they demanded Ford car. She was thrown out of house forcibly. Then complainant came back to her parents home at Moga. Her father convened panchayat and went to petitioners home and matter was resolved. Then complainant went to Canada. Jatinder Singh was present in Canada. Jatinder Singh again harassing her and demanded ford car and said that he had become permanent resident of Canada and number of alliance wants to marry him who are ready to given 20-25 lakh rupees. Jatinder Singh threw her out and she was forced to come back India on 27.02.2005. In this background, present FIR was registered against the petitioners. Counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 has tendered affidavit of Nirmal Singh Brar-father of respondent No.2 in the Court and the same is taken on record. As per affidavit, power of attorney has been given to him on behalf of Jaspreet Kaur. It has further been alleged in the affidavit that Jaspreet Kaur has received all her istridhan of every kind and also her past, present and future maintenance allowance from the petitioners. Nirmal Singh Brar-father of respondent No.2 is present in Court who has been identified by his counsel. After investigation, challan was presented and charges were framed. After framing of the charges, the case was fixed for recording the prosecution evidence. During the pendency of the trial, petitioner No.3 was Criminal Misc. No. M- 9728 of 2011(O&M) 3 declared as Proclaimed Offender. At this stage, the parties have entered into compromise and decided not to pursue the criminal proceedings and other litigations pending between the parties. This Court in Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal versus State of Punjab a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 17.3.2011 had an occasion to examine a case where three accused namely Radha Mandal, Rajiya Mandal and Sambodh Mandal were facing trial under Section 302 IPC, and subsequently they had absconded and declared proclaimed offenders. In the trial, accused Sudo Mandal and Dharminder Mandal were convicted by the trial Court. Appeal of accused Sudo Mandal and Dharminder Mandal were allowed by observing that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish its case. While examining the case of the three accused, who had been declared proclaimed offenders, this Court, while exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashed the proceedings against the absconding accused on the ground that no useful purpose will be served if they are produced and ordered to face the trial. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 9728 of 2011(O&M) 4 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 9728 of 2011(O&M) 5 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 :- “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 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) and applying the ration of Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal versus State of Punjab (supra) as well as in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another, FIR No. 159 dated 10.06.2005 under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, registered at Police Station City Moga-I, District Moga, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. 12th May, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Seema-II JUDGE Criminal Misc. No. M- 9728 of 2011(O&M) 6