CRM No.M-9432 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-28.10.2010 Haridev alias Bittu and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.C.L.Pawar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Vikas Malik, A.A.G.Haryana. Mr.Rohit Ahuja, 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 involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, are that the marriage of complainant Sunita Devi (respondent No.2) was solemnized with petitioner No.1 Haridev alias Bittu according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 7.1.2007. After solemnization of the marriage, they lived together and cohabited as husband and wife but no child was born out of the said wedlock. The complainant claimed that although at the time of her marriage, her parents gave sufficient dowry articles and have spent about Rs.10 lacs on the marriage, but the petitioners-accused were not satisfied with the same. They started demanding more dowry articles, abusing and beating her. They asked her to bring Rs.2 lacs for a Santro Car from her parents. She showed her inability to fulfill the illegal demand of the petitioners. Thereafter, they started harassing her. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the complainant that the petitioners-accused treated her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. On the basis CRM No.M-9432 of 2010 2 of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioners-accused, vide FIR No.19 dated 19.1.2010 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 406, 498-A and 506 IPC by the police of Police Station Sector 55, Faridabad. 3. What is not disputed here is that during the course of the investigation, the good sense prevailed and the matter was amicably settled between the parties at the intervention of relatives and well wishers, vide compromise deed (Annexure P3). The complainant has also filed her affidavit (Annexure P4) in this relevant connection. 4. In this manner, now the petitioners have 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 mutually agreed to live separately from each other. In pursuance of the compromise, they have already filed a divorce petition by way of mutual consent under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, which has already been accepted and their marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 4.9.2010. 5. 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? 6. Having heard 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 direction. 7. 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 CRM No.M-9432 of 2010 3 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. 8. 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 disputes, on the basis of lawful settlement. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is fully attracted in the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 9. As is evident from the record that the parties have compromised the matter and decided to live separately. The divorce has already been granted to them vide decree of divorce dated 4.9.2010. To my mind, the compromise would be in the interest and welfare of the parties. Since the parties have lawfully agreed to settle the dispute, so, 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. 10. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby CRM No.M-9432 of 2010 4 accepted. Consequently, FIR No.19 dated 19.1.2010 (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and the petitioners are discharged, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 28.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge