CRM No.M-36869 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-11.10.2010 Sukhmander Singh s/o Bikar Singh ...Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Satbir Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, DAG Punjab. Mr.Kamaljet Singh Sidhu, Advocate for Mr.Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.2. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Tersenessly, the facts, which need a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy raised in the present petition and emanating from the record, is that the marriage of Karamjit Kaur (respondent No.2) was solemnized with Sukhmander Singh (petitioner) on 10.12.2008 according to Sikh rites and ceremonies at Sandly Wehra, Punjabi Dhaba, Ludhiana. An amount of Rs.5 lacs was stated to have been given by the brother of the complainant to the accused, besides other dowry articles and gold ornaments. After the solemnization of the marriage, Sukhmander Singh husband asked her to encash fixed deposit of Rs.16 lacs in her name. She projected her inability to encash the FDR on the ground that the same amount has already been spent by her brother at the time of marriage. The petitioner-accused also directed her to give jewellery but she refused to oblige him. He threatened her with dire consequences of elimination. He forcibly took her jewellery. The complainant claimed that the accused started torturing and harassing her. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the complainant that the petitioner-accused treated her CRM No.M-36869 of 2009 2 with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioner- accused, vide FIR No.17 dated 15.4.2009 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 406, 498-A and 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station Hambran, Distt.Ludhiana. 3. What is not disputed here is that during the course of investigation, the good sense prevailed and the matter was compromised between the parties at the intervention of respectables and relatives. They have broken all the relations with each other and decided to live separately. . 4. In this manner, now the petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the FIR (Annexure P1) and all subsequent proceedings thereto on the basis of compromise, invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia, pleading that the parties have compromised the matter, vide compromise deed (Annexure P2). The case was placed before the Lok Adalat, where the statements of the parties were recorded. They reiterated and maintained that they have amicably settled their disputes. 5. Having recorded the statements, the Lok Adalat sent this matter for further appropriate orders, by virtue of order dated 9.8.2010, which is in the following manner:- “Power of attorney on behalf of respondent No.2 has been filed by Mr.Naveen Sharma, Advocate. Statements of Sukhmander Singh- petitioner and Karamjit Kaur- respondent No.2 (the complainant) have been recorded. Marriage between the parties has been dissolved by decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act by mutual consent as per their statements. Both of them have stated so and have no objection and prayed for quashing of proceedings initiated on FIR No.17, dated 15.4.2009, under Sections 406/498-A/120-B IPC at Police Station Hambran, District Ludhiana Rural. The matter is returned to the Hon'ble High Court for appropriate CRM No.M-36869 of 2009 3 orders.” 6. Such thus being the position on record, now the sole question that arises for determination in this petition is as to whether it would be expedient in the interest of justice to quash the criminal prosecution or not? 7. Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to me, justice would be sub-served if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter in this relevant connection. 8. The law of settlement of criminal disputes by virtue of compromise is not res-integra and is well settled. The clear and explicit intention of the Legislature in this regard was transformed in reality by Hon'ble Apex Court in cases Manoj Sharma v. State & Ors. 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 827; B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana 2003 (2) RCR (Crl.) 888 (SC) and Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052. 9. The symposium of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is that the power under section 482 Cr.PC has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever- lasting congeniality in society and resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery if the statement is fair being free from under pressure. Meaning thereby, the High Court has unlimited power to quash the criminal proceedings, relatable to matrimonial and property disputes, on the basis of lawful settlement. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is fully attracted CRM No.M-36869 of 2009 4 in the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 10. As the parties have lawfully agreed to settle the dispute, therefore, to my mind, there is no impediment in translating the wishes of the parties into reality and to quash the criminal prosecution to set the matter at rest to enable them to live in peace and to enjoy the life and liberty in a dignified manner as guaranteed by and as contemplated in the Constitution of India. 11. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No.17 dated 15.4.2009 (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and the petitioner is discharged, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 11.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge