Crl. Misc. No.M-4002 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-4002 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:- 06.05.2011 Sudesh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG, Haryana Mr. Aman Dhir, Advocate for respondent No. 2 RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The petitioners have sought quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C of F.I.R No. 183 dated 26.04.2010 under Sections 452, 454, 425, 426, 506, 504, 323, 120-B of IPC (Annexure P5), registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar and all subsequent and consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise. Brief facts of the case are that the present F.I.R was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2/complainant. The marriage of petitioner No. 1 was solemnized with Amit Kumar on 04.11.2003 at Hisar. Out of this wedlock, a daughter namely Disha was born on 29.11.2004. Unfortunately, husband of petitioner No. 1 i.e Amit Kumar lost his life in an unfortunate accident on 11.09.2005 and since the relations of petitioner No. 1 with her in-laws are not cordial. Complainant has also filed a complainant before the JMIC Hisar on 24.04.2010 with regard to alleged trespass and beatings given to her on 21.04.2010 and subsequently, the present F.I.R was ordered to be registered Crl. Misc. No.M-4002 of 2011 (O&M) -2- under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and consequently, the present FIR was registered against the petitioners. After investigation of the case, challan has been submitted in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate, Hisar on 13.09.2010 and the case is now fixed for 26.05.2011 for presence of the accused in the Court of Ms. Sunita Gupta, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Hisar. However, during pendency of the various litigations, the parties have now compromised the matter with each other (Annexures P1 to P3). In compliance of order dated 08.02.2011, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court and get their statement recorded with regard to the validity of compromise. Report has been submitted in this regard by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar. As per this report, on 15.03.2011, both the complainant as well as accused party appeared before the Court and they were duly identified by their respective Advocates Ms. Anita Mann, Advocate and Sh. Rajender Singh Panghal, Advocate. Thereafter, both the parties got recorded their separate statements to the effect that the compromise has been effected between them and they have understood the contents of compromise (Annexure P1 to P3). As per these statements, the compromise is valid. As per statement of petitioner No. 1, Mukhtiar Singh had given Rs. 5,00,000/- to them and out of that amount, she has deposited Rs.2,50,000/- in the F.D.R in State Bank of India, Mini Secretariat, Hisar in the name of her daughter i.e Disha and that compromise was regarding all the litigations pending between them and she will not raise any claim in future. She further deposxed that compromise took place without any pressure and for the betterment of both the parties and they still agree with that compromise. Mukhtiar Singh, Angoori Devi and Ankit have also made their joint statement in this regard and deposed that compromise was for the betterment of both the parties and they still agree with that compromise. Broad guidelines have been laid down by the Full Crl. Misc. No.M-4002 of 2011 (O&M) -3- 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 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 enmity 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 Crl. Misc. No.M-4002 of 2011 (O&M) -4- 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 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 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), F.I.R No. 183 dated 26.04.2010 under Sections 452, 454, 425, 426, 506, 504, 323, 120-B of IPC (Annexure P5), registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar (Annexure P1) is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. May 06, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) G.Arora JUDGE