Criminal Misc. No. M- 1125 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 1125 of 2011 Date of decision:- 08.03.2011 Gagandeep and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. H.S. Rakhra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. None for respondent No.2-despite service. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.147 dated 22.10.2010 under Sections 323,341 and 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Rampura, District Bathinda on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-1). Respondent No.2-Anjali Sharma registered this FIR against the petitioners. As per FIR, complainant solemnized marriage with petitioner No.1- Gagandeep Sharma through Court on 09.1.2009. A dispute between them arisen on 03.5.2010 and a panchayati rajinama was effected and as per rajinama petitioner No.1 would have to take her after three months to his house but he would not take her to his house. On repeated phone calls petitioner No.1 did not pick up the phone. On 14.10.2010 at about 11.00 complainant went to the house of petitioner No.1-Gagandeep Sharma and there Tarsem Sharma, father of petitioner No.1 alongwith Nirmala Devi, mother of petitioner No.1, Rana brother Criminal Misc. No. M- 1125 of 2011 -2- of petitioner No.1 and one another Soma son of Tej Ram were present. Complainant was turned out of house by giving slaps and fist blows in the head by petitioner No.1 and other persons gave her leg blows in her back and demanded Rs.4,00,000/- as dowry. After that she was admitted in hospital at Rampura. During pendency of investigations, compromise was effected between the parties and according to compromise parties do not want to pursue the criminal proceedings initiated in the FIR. In compliance of order dated 14.1.2011, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phul has sent a report verifying the contents of the compromise. As per this report, on 19.2.2011 complainant Anjali Sharma made a statement to the effect that she has compromised the matter with the accused. She is now living in the house of accused andher family members and other respectables of the village have facilitated a compromise between them. Now, she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the accused. Similarly, accused Tarsem Sharma, Nirmala Devi, Gagandeep, Som Dutt and Randeep also suffered a statement on the same day to the effect that they have compromised the matter with the complainant-Anjali Sharma due to intervention of respectables of the locality. After recording the statements of the parties, the compromise is held to be genuine. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 1125 of 2011 -3- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 1125 of 2011 -4- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 1125 of 2011 -5- 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 of the report of trial Court and as per 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 cases 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.147 dated 22.10.2010 under Sections 323,341 and 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Rampura, District Bathinda, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. March 08, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE