Crl. Misc. No. M-1526 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-1526 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.05.2011 Avtar Singh and others ......Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioners. Sh. Guninder S. Brar, A.A.G., Punjab for respondent No. 1-State Mr. Damanjeet, Advocate for respondent No. 2 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR No.33 dated 04.06.2008 under Sections 307/34 (now challan under Section 498-A, 34 IPC as 307 IPC has been deleted) of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the Code') registered at Police Station Koom Kalan Police, District Khanna, District Ludhiana and all the subsequent proceeding arising thereof pending in the Court of JMIC Ludhiana, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3). Brief facts of the case are that the above FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2. The petitioners used to torture respondent No. 2 for demand of dowry and gave beatings to her time and again. They even tried to give poison to respondent No. 2 with an intention to kill her. In the above background, FIR was registered against the petitioners. After registration of the FIR, challan, Section 307 was deleted and challan was presented under Section 498-A. After filing of the challan, the parties have compromised the matter, vide Annexure P3. As per this compromise, Crl. Misc. No. M-1526 of 2011 (O&M) -2- respondent No. 2 has compromised the matter with the accused with the intervention of respectables of society and well wishers of both the parties persons and some relatives. Now complainant has started living with her husband i.e petitioner No. 1 since April 2010, which is being reduced into writing. It has been mutually agreed between both the parties that they shall not file any case against each other for damages or any other case of losses suffered by anybody, in any court of law with regard to said FIR. They have further decided to end their litigation with their mutual consent without there being any pressure, coercion or threat upon them. Both the parties have amicably decided to get the FIR quashed from this Court and respondent No. 2 will withdraw all cases filed against the petitioners. All the disputes between them have been resolved and they wanted to live together peacefully in future. Original compromise is also taken on record as Annexure A-1. Counsel for respondent No.2 has put in appearance and filed his reply by way of short affidavit admitting the factum of compromise and stating that due to intervention of respectable and relatives, the matter has been compromised with the petitioner and now she is having no objection if the FIR in question with consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed qua petitioners. However, she has admitted in her affidavit that she has withdrawn her petition which was pending before JMIC, Ludhiana filed under Protection of Women from domestic violence on 15.09.2010. The compromise is voluntarily and without any pressure. As per compromise (Annexure P-3 ), both the parties have settled the dispute amicably as per the conditions recorded in the compromise. In compliance of order dated 18.01.2011, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court for recording of their statements but no report has been received yet. However, the parties have compromised the matter and respondent No. 2 has filed her affidavit admitted the factum of compromise. Broad guidelines have been laid down by the Full Bench of this Crl. Misc. No. M-1526 of 2011 (O&M) -3- 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-1526 of 2011 (O&M) -4- 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 cases 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.33 dated 04.06.2008 under Sections 498-A, 34 IPC of the Code registered at Police Station Koom Kalan Police, District Khanna, District Ludhiana and all the subsequent proceeding arising thereof pending in the Court of JMIC Ludhiana, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 17, 2011 G.Arora