Criminal Misc. No. M-10721 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Criminal Misc. No. M-10721 of 2008 Date of decision:-27.05.2008 Bhanu Vashishth and others ...Petitioners. Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents. 2. Criminal Misc. No. M-8217 of 2008 Narhari Sharma ....Petitioner Versus Virendra and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:- Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioners in Criminal Misc. No. M-10721 of 2008. Mr. D.S. Bishnoi, Advocate for the petitioner in Criminal Misc. No. M-8217 of 2008. Mr. Ajay Ghengas, DAG Haryana. Mr. Chetan Salathia, Advocate for Mr. Rajan Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1 in Criminal Misc. No. M-8217 of 2008 and for respondents No.2 and 3 in Criminal Misc. No. M-10721 of 2008. RAJESH BINDAL J. This order will dispose of two petitions bearing Criminal Misc. No. M-10721 and M-8217 of 2008. However, the facts are being extracted from Criminal Misc. No. M-10721 of 2008. The prayer in both the present petitions is for quashing of FIR No.94 dated 20.02.2006, under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 34 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon. Criminal Misc. No. M-10721 of 2008 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this is an unfortunate dispute in a matrimonial matter where the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3 could not settle in their matrimonial home and as a result of this litigation arose. The marriage between the parties were solemnized on July 15, 2005. The parties lived together for a very short period. Due to differences, the impugned FIR came to be recorded on February 20, 2006 merely after seven months of the marriage. The submission is that now with the intervention of the well wishers, all the disputes between the parties have been settled and in terms thereof the amount of permanent alimony has already been paid. Further, the dowry articles have already been returned. Even the marriage between the parties has been dissolved by a decree of divorce passed by learned District Judge, Gurgaon on May 22, 2008 in a petition filed under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. A copy of the compromise deed dated March 25, 2008 is placed on record as Annexure P-2. The prayer is for quashing of FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto. Reliance has been placed upon a five Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007(3) Law Herald (P & H) 2225. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 does not dispute the factum of compromise between the parties. He has admitted that a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- as was agreed to be paid by the petitioners to respondents No.2 and 3 has already been received. However, he submits that the dowry articles which were recovered by the Investigating Officer, are still lying with him and the same are required to be returned to the complainant. As far as quashing of FIR is concerned, the submission is that respondents No.2 and 3 do not have any objection to that. Criminal Misc. No. M-10721 of 2008 -3- On May 8, 2008 when the matter came up for hearing before this court, the following order was passed:- “Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of FIR No.94 dated 20.02.2006, under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 34, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon. The quashing is prayed for on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties on March 25, 2008, copy thereof has been placed on record with the petition as Annexure P-2. The marriage between Bhanu Vashishth-petitioner No.1 and Viparna Bhardwaj-respondent No.3 was solemnized on July 15, 2005 which was registered on July 20, 2005. On July 25, 2005 petitioner No.1 left for Canada. Though he came back on January 27, 2006 but the parties could not settle in the matrimonial home because of certain differences for which allegations and counter allegations have been made. In terms of the compromise, both the parties namely petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3 decided to dissolve the marriage with honour and dignity. By way of permanent alimony as full and final settlement, the petitioners agreed to pay a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- to respondents No.2 and 3. The dowry articles given by the private respondents had already been recovered by the police and were lying at the Police Station Gurgaon to which they were entitled to take possession of. As per terms of the agreement, out of total sum of Rs.11,00,000/- settled between the parties, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid by way of demand draft bearing No. 475112 dated 26.3.2008 at the time of presentation of compromise deed before this court for quashing of FIR and the remaining amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was to be paid by way of demand draft at the time of presentation of the petition for divorce by Criminal Misc. No. M-10721 of 2008 -4- mutual consent under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (for short 'the Act”) before the competent court which was to be done not later than April 30, 2008. It was further agreed upon that the respondent-complainant shall withdraw all the cases filed against the petitioners and will have no objection for quashing of the FIR No.94 dated February 20, 2006. In terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, a petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13-B of the Act was filed before the learned District Judge, Gurgaon in which joint statement of both the parties was recorded on April 21, 2008. It was specifically stated therein that the parties are living separately since February 20, 2006 because of temperamental differences. All reconciliatory efforts had failed. There is no child born out of wedlock and a compromise had been arrived at between the parties in terms of which as full and final settlement as permanent alimony the petitioners are required to pay a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- to the complainant. After recording the statement, the learned District Judge, Gurgaon adjourned the petition for October 22, 2008 for further consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as the disputes between the parties have already been settled, the parties are admittedly living separately since February 20, 2006 and there is no child born out from the wedlock and all reconciliation efforts having failed, it is a fit case where the learned District Judge should condone the statutory period of six months as sufficient reasons were available therefor so that the parties could settle in life early. He further submitted that entire sum of Rs.11,00,000/- as agreed upon between the parties to be paid by the petitioners to the complainant, have already been paid. A sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid on Criminal Misc. No. M-10721 of 2008 -5- March 31,2008 before this court by way of demand draft bearing No.475112 dated March 26, 2008 drawn on Vijaya Bank, Delhi in favour of respondent No.3 and the balance of Rs.6,00,000/- was paid by way of demand draft bearing No.661026 dated April 19, 2008 drawn on Vijaya Bank, Bahadurgarh to respondent No.3. From the facts on record it is evident that the marriage in the present case between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3 is irretrievably broken down because of incompatibility of temperament. The matrimonial bond between the parties is beyond repair. The marriage is only of name. The same has been wricked beyond the hope of salvage. The parties have even settled their disputes finally by return of dowry articles and payment of permanent alimony. In my opinion this is a fit case where the period of six months deserves to be condoned so that the parties could settle in their life after the disputes between the parties are settled finally. Under similar circumstances this court earlier condoned the statutory period in Amit Jain V. Taruna Jain RCR (Civil) 785 while referring to judgments in Rabindra Nath Mukherjee V. I.T.I. Mukherjee @ Chatterjee, 1992(1) HLR Calcutta 445 , Vinod Arora V. Smt. Manju Arora, AIR 1982 Delhi 592 and vide order dated December 19, 2007 passed in Civil Revision No. 6412 of 2007 titled as Ekta Versus Vishal Singla. In view of my above discussions, I deem it appropriate to condone the statutory period of six months after recording of statement by the parties in the divorce petition before the learned District Judge, Gurgaon and direct the parties to appear before learned District Judge, Gurgaon on May 22, 2008 for further proceedings, who shall pass appropriate order after preponing the date of hearing.” Criminal Misc. No. M-10721 of 2008 -6- Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in terms of the order passed, the parties appeared before the learned District Judge, Gurgaon and got their statements recorded. A joint statement of the parties as was recorded before the learned District Judge, Gurgaon is extracted below:- “Our marriage was solemnized on 15.07.2005 at Gurgaon, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and was registered on 20.07.2005. Thereafter, we lived together and cohabited as husband and wife at Surya Vihar, Gurgaon, but no child was born out of our wedlock. Despite best efforts and keen desire we could not adjust with each other and thus started living separately since 20.02.2006, because of temperamental differences. All reconciliatory efforts between us failed. Hence, with the intervention of brotherhood Panchayat, ultimately we decided to get divorce by way of mutual consent. A compromise has been arrived between us and compromise deed is Annexure P-1. As per terms of said compromise deed, father of petitioner No.2 has agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 11 lakh for full and final settlement of alimony, compensation, maintenance and other expenses incurred on marriage etc. In terms of compromise, father of petitioner No.2 has filed an application for quashing of the FIR No.94 dated 20.02.2006 u/ss 498A, 323, 34, 120B IPC, registered at Police Station Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, lodged by father of petitioner No.1 in the Hon'ble High Court, Chandigarh. Petitioner No.1 shall help petitioner No.2 in getting the FIR quashed before the Hon'ble High Court, Chandigarh. Father of petitioner No.2 has already handed over a draft of Rs.5 lakhs to the father of petitioner No.1, in the Hon'ble High Court. Petitioner No.2 has already paid Rs.6 lakhs on 21.4.2008 at the time Criminal Misc. No. M-10721 of 2008 -7- of first motion by demand draft bearing No.661026 dated 19.04.2008 drawn on Vijaya Bank, Bahadurgarh, to petitioner No.1. The dowry/Istridhan etc. have already been recovered by the police and petitioner No.1 is entitled to receive the same and petitioner No.2 has no objection to hand over those articles to petitioner No.1. As such the maintenance past, present and further have been settled between us and nothing remains to be settled and henceforth petitioner No.1 shall no claim qua maintenance either past or present or future against petitioner No.2. During the period of our previous joint statement made on 21.4.2008 till today we have not resumed cohabitation. We may kindly be granted divorce by way of mutual consent.” In terms of compromise between the parties and considering the statement made before the court, the learned District Judge vide judgment and decree dated May 22, 2008 dissolved the marriage between the parties by way of a decree by mutual consent. A perusal of the statement made by the parties before the learned District Judge, Gurgaon shows that the compromise arrived at between the parties was endorsed on payment of a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- as full and final settlement for permanent alimony, compensation, maintenance and other expenses incurred on marriage. It is further mentioned therein that a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- has already been received by the complainant party and even the dowry articles have also been recovered by the police and the petitioners will not have any objection in case the same are handed over to the complainant. While dealing with issue of quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise a Bench consisting of five Hon'ble Judges of this Court in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra) while approving minority view in Criminal Misc. No. M-10721 of 2008 -8- Dharambir v. State of Haryana, 2005(2) Law Herald (P&H) (FB) 723, opined as under:- “27. To conclude, it can safely be said that there can never be any hard and fast category which can be prescribed to enable the Court to exercise its power under Section 482, of the Cr.P.C. The only principle that can be laid down is the one which has been incorporated in the Section itself, i.e., “to prevent abuse of the process of any Court” or “to secure the ends of justice”. 28. In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney Versus Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, (1980) 1 S.C.C. 63, Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the essence of compromise in the following words:- “The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.” 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. 29. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 30. 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-10721 of 2008 -9- 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. 31. The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice. 32. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para-meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restraint. The Court is 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. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-10721 of 2008 -10- abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.” Compromise in modern society is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. As observed by Krishna Iyer J., the finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion. Inherent power of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not limited to matrimonial cases alone. The Court has wide powers to quash the proceedings even in non- compoundable offences in order to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice, notwithstanding bar under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Exercise of power in a given situation will depend on facts of each case. The duty of the Court is not only to decide a lis between the parties after a protracted litigation but it is a vital and extra-ordinary instrument to maintain and control social order. Resolution of dispute by way of compromise between two warring groups should be encouraged unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of society or would promote savagery, as held in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra). Keeping in view the enunciation of law as referred to above and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case, once the matter has been compromised between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the prosecution. Accordingly, FIR No. 94 dated 20.02.2006, under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 34 and 120- B IPC registered at Police Station Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. As the dowry articles recovered from the petitioners are lying with the Investigating Officer, he is directed to hand over the same to the complainant immediately. Criminal Misc. No. M-10721 of 2008 -11- A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the Bench Secretary. The petition are disposed of accordingly. May 27, 2008. (RAJESH BINDAL) asija JUDGE