Criminal Misc. No. M-3045 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-3045 of 2011 Date of decision:- 08.04.2011 Anij Sharma and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl.A.G. Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. G.S. Rawat, Advocate for respondent No.2-complainant. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.6 dated 15.1.2011 under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, registered at Police Station City, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise. As per FIR, the marriage between respondent No.2-complainant and petitioner No.1-Anij Sharma was solemnized on 25.7.2010. Sufficient dowry articles were given at the time of marriage by the parents of complainant. The complainant was tortured physically and mentally for want of more dowry. In this background, the FIR was registered. During pendency of the investigation, the matter has been compromised between the parties due to intervention of respectable persons from both the sides. Original compromise deed has been placed on record as Criminal Misc. No. M-3045 of 2011 -2- Annexure A-1. Affidavit of complainant-Sonam has also been attached with the petition. As per compromise, Anij Sharma-husband has given Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant towards present and future expenses. This amount has been entrusted to Sunil Ghai son of Guru Datt Ghai, which shall be given to the complainant after finishing of the court proceedings. Respondent No.2- complainant is present in the court and has been identified by her counsel and has also tendered her affidavit to the effect that the matter has been compromised with the accused persons and now she has no objection if the criminal proceedings are quashed. In compliance of order dated 1.2.2011, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, SBS Nagar has sent a report verifying the contents of the compromise. As per this report, complainant-Sonam alongwith her counsel appeared before the trial Court and recorded her statement to the effect that she has compromise with accused Anij Sharma, Naresh Sharma, Asha Rani Nisha Dutta and Tamanna Sharma and does not want to initiate any proceedings against them. She has placed on record copy of compromise Ex.PA. Accused Anij Sharma has also made statement to the effect that the matter has been compromised with the complainant and referred the compromise Ex.PA. 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 63, Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the Criminal Misc. No. M-3045 of 2011 -3- 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 has been made to the offences against human body other than murder and Criminal Misc. No. M-3045 of 2011 -4- 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 parties Criminal Misc. No. M-3045 of 2011 -5- 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 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 others vs. State of Punjab and another (supra) and Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another (supra), FIR No.6 dated 15.1.2011 under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, registered at Police Station City, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. April 08, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE