Criminal Misc. No. M- 2439 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 2439 of 2011 Date of decision:- 29.3.2011 Sh. Gurmeet Singh Taneja and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG Haryana for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Tejinder Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2-complainant. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 386 dated 04.11.2006 under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, registered at Police Station Model Town, Panipat, District Panipat (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise. As per contents of the FIR, the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2-complainant was solemnized on 30.3.2002. After few months of the marriage, husband of complainant, mother-in-law and both sisters-in-law Parminder and Narinder started taunting and harassing the complainant on account of bringing less dowry and demanded for Zen Car also. On 11.7.2003 complainant gave birth to a boy. The complainant was also thrown out of her matrimonial house alongwith with child after given beatings. In this background, present FIR was registered against the accused persons. Criminal Misc. No. M- 2439 of 2011 -2- During pendency of the trial, parties have entered into compromise and mutually agreed to dissolve the marriage by decree of mutual consent. A decree of divorce was passed vide order dated 10.1.2011 passed by Additional District Judge-04 (West), Delhi (Annexure P-3) and the marriage was dissolved. As per terms of the settlement Rs.15,00,000/- were agreed to be paid by petitioner No.1 to respondent No.2. Today an affidavit of respondent No.2- Beenu has been filed by her counsel in the Court in which it has been stated that as per terms and conditions of the settlement Rs.15,00,000/- were to be paid to her by petitioner No.1. Out of which Rs.5,00,000/- has been paid today to respondent No.2-complainant by petitioner No.1 vide Demand Draft No.813229 dated 15.1.2011 amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- drawn at Oriental Bank of Commerce. As per respondent No.2-complainant, she has received Rs.15,00,000/- and now nothing is due from the petitioners and now she has no objection if the present FIR is quashed qua petitioners. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 2439 of 2011 -3- 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 2439 of 2011 -4- 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.” 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 2439 of 2011 -5- 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 of the affidavit filed by respondent No.2- complainant dated 29.3.2011 and 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) and Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another (supra), FIR No. 386 dated 04.11.2006 under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, registered at Police Station Model Town, Panipat, District Panipat, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. March 29, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE