Crl. Misc. No. M-37393 of 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-37393 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 06.05.2011 Sachin Gupta and others ......Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. S.A. Rajput, Advocate for the petitioners. Sh. Kshitij Sharma,AAG, Haryana for respondent Nos. 1 & 2-State Mr. Ruminderjit Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No.45 dated 11.09.2008, under Sections 406 and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station CAW Cell/Mahila Thana District Sonepat and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise deed (Annexure P-4). The facts, in brief, are that on 10.07.2005 Sachin Gupta, petitioner no. 1 was married with Tripti, respondent no.3 in Delhi as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Out of this wedlock, one female child was born on 01.05.2006. The custody of the child is with respondent no.3. On account of temperamental differences between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.3, the instant FIR was registered against the petitioners. Crl. Misc. No. M-37393 of 2010(O&M) -2- However, during the pendency of the trial, both the parties arrived at a compromise with the intervention of the respectables, friends and relatives of both the parties. During the course of compromise, it was agreed by the petitioners that they will pay a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- to respondent no.3 as full and final payment towards maintenance. It was also agreed between them that the petitioners will hand over all the dowry articles to respondent no.3. Out of the agreed amount, a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- will be paid by Sachin Gupta, petitioner no.1 to respondent no.3 at the time of filing a divorce petition by way of mutual consent. It was also agreed in between them that respondent no.3 will be withdrawn the proceedings, initiated by her before the Family Court at Sonepat. Thereafter, balance amount of Rs.3,50,000/- will also be paid in equal two installments, first at the time of making her statement before the Family Court, Rohini and second at the time of quashing the instant FIR. On receipt of full and final payment, a decree of divorce by way of mutual consent has been passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Rohini Court, Delhi on 13.12.2010. The custody of the minor child will be remained with respondent no.3 and she will not claim any amount for past, present and future from petitioner no.1. Respondent No. 3 appeared through counsel and filed her affidavit admitting the factum of compromise and stating that due to intervention of respectable and relatives, the matter has been compromised with the petitioners and now she is having no objection if the FIR, in question, with consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed qua Crl. Misc. No. M-37393 of 2010(O&M) -3- petitioners. Respondent No.3-complainant is present in the Court and has identified by her counsel. The compromise is voluntarily and without any pressure. As per compromise (Annexure P-4), both the parties have settled the dispute amicably as per the conditions recorded in the compromise. Counsel for the respondent does not dispute the genuineness of the affidavit annexed with the petition. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-37393 of 2010(O&M) -4- 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, Crl. Misc. No. M-37393 of 2010(O&M) -5- 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 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 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 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another (supra), 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.45 dated 11.09.2008, under Sections 406 and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Crl. Misc. No. M-37393 of 2010(O&M) -6- Station CAW Cell/Mahila Thana District Sonepat is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 06, 2011 dinesh