Crl. Misc. No. M-21921 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-21921 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision :4.3.2011 Sanjay Kumar .......... petitioner Versus State of Punjab& another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present : Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. S.S. Chadha, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** RITU BAHRI, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 150 dated 22.9.2007, under Sections 406, 498-A, 506 IPC registered at Police Station Haibowal and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. The allegations in the FIR by respondent No.2 are that the petitioner was married to respondent No.2 on 21.2.2000 at Ludhiana as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of this wedlock two children were born. Due to some misunderstand, the petitioner had changed his residence so that matrimonial terms between the couple Crl. Misc. No. M-21921 of 2010 -2- could solve. He had shifted to Urban Estawte Jalandhar in October 2004. The relationship deteriorated and petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking decree of divorce on 22.2.2007. Respondent No.2 lodged the present FIR as a counter blast to the proceedings initiated by the petitioner for divorce. Vide judgment dated 21.12.2009, the petitioner was granted a decree of divorce. Respondent No.2 filed FAO No. M-157 of 2010 in the High Court, which is pending. During the proceedings of this FAO the matter was sent to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The petitioner in the mean time had filed this criminal miscellaneous for quashing of FIR registered against him. Before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. On 1.11.2010, the petitioner gave a draft No. 996145 dated 8.11.2010 of Rs. 3,00,000/- drawn at HDFC Bank as well as the certificate of Smt. Rakesh Kumari and has also cleared all the loan accounts that were either in the name of Smt. Rakesh Kumari or her brothers and No objection certificate from the bank in original has been handed over to Smt.Rakesh Kumari. The terms of the settlement dated 1.11.2010 were performed by the petitioner and consequently, it was agreed between the parties that Smt. Rakesh Kumari will withdraw FAO No. M157/M filed by her. It was also settled that Smt. Rakesh Kumari will also give the statement before this Court in quashing the petition filed by the petitioner. She will withdraw criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for claiming maintenance for Rupesh which is Crl. Misc. No. M-21921 of 2010 -3- pending at Ludhiana. FIR under Section 326 IPC got registered by the petitioner against the family of Smt. Rakesh Kumar-respondent No.2 will not be pressed any further and he will be bound to give positive statement so that it results into acquittal of the accused and / or in case the family of Smt. Rakesh Kumari chooses to file quashing petition before this Court. The petitioner will also withdraw civil suit claiming custody of Rupesh, who is in the care and custody of his mother Smt. Rakesh Kumari. Both the parties will not file any case for claiming custody of their respective sons who are in their respective custody. Petitioner will also have no objection to Smt. Rakesh Kumari visiting the school of her son Bhupesh who is studying at Innocent Heart Sr. Sec. School, Jalandhar once in a month during the school hours in the school premises. Ane he will also inform the school giving his consent to this arrangement. Smt. Rakesh Kumari in turn will also have no objection in case the petitioner wishes to visit his son Rupesh who is in custody of his mother once in a month by seeking prior appointment. In compliance of the settlement arrived at between the parties in Mediation and Conciliation Centre, the affidavit of the complainant, who is present in the Court, has been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that as per the terms of the agreement the petitioner has withdrawn the civil suit claiming custody of his son Rupesh. Crl. Misc. No. M-21921 of 2010 -4- 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-21921 of 2010 -5- 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 amity 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-21921 of 2010 -6- 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) R.C.R. (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 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 a re, cannot afford.” Keeping in view the status report, this Court has no hesitation to quash the FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. 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 Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), FIR No. 150 dated 22.9.2007, under Sections 406, 498-A, 506 IPC registered at Police Station Haibowal and all Crl. Misc. No. M-21921 of 2010 -7- subsequent proceedings arising therefrom is quashed on the basis of compromise. The petition stands disposed of. 4.3.2011 (RITU BAHRI) 'sp' JUDGE