Criminal Misc. No. M- 18901 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 18901 of 2010 Date of decision:- 23.3.2011 Ram Murti Dawar and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Parveen Rohilla, Advocate for Mr. Namit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S. Virk, DAG Haryana for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Gian Chand Shahpuri, 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. 115 dated 08.6.2010 under Sections 406,498-A,323 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Mullana, District Ambala (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise. Brief facts as per FIR are that the marriage between complainant- respondent No.2-Dimple and petitioner No.1-Ram Murti Dawar was solemnized on 26.1.2004. Sufficient dowry articles were given in the marriage by the parents of complainant but petitioners were not satisfied. The complainant was tortured physically and mentally. Out of wedlock, the complainant gave birth to a female child in the month of March 2005. The greed of money was increasing day by day in the family of petitioners and they also demanded a car from the Criminal Misc. No. M- 18901 of 2010 -2- complainant's family but after shown inability by the complainant, the accused persons got annoyed and in the intervening night of 24/25th April 2005 accused No.2 caught hold the complainant from her hair and accused No.1 gave fist and slaps to the complainant. At that time, father-in-law of the complainant was standing nearly and also instigated the accused No.1 to beat her more and more. The matter was tried to be patched up many times by the parents of the complainant but the accused persons did not listen any thing. Thereafter complainant continued to live with her parents at her parental house. Complaint in this regard was moved to the police but the police did not register any case. After that the matter was brought to the knowledge of the Court, from where, the complaint of the complainant was sent to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR. In this background, the present FIR was registered against the accused persons. During the pending proceedings, the matter was compromised between the parties. In compliance of order dated 25.2.2011, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala has sent a report verifying the contents of the compromise. As per this report, on 21.1.2011 complainant Dimple appeared before the trial Court and recorded her statement to the effect that the said FIR was registered due to some misunderstanding and now the matter has been compromised with the intervention of respectable persons and relatives. She alongwith her daughters is living with her husband Ram Murti happily without any pressure in her matrimonial home at Panipat for the last six months. She does not want to pursue the said case and has no objection if the said FIR is quashed qua petitioners. On the other hand, joint statement of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 has also been recorded on 21.1.2011 to the effect that the said case against them was registered due to some misunderstanding and now the matter Criminal Misc. No. M- 18901 of 2010 -3- has been compromised with the intervention of respectable persons and relatives. Now, complainant-Dimple alongwith daughters is living with them happily, without any pressure, in the matrimonial home at Panipat for the last six months. 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 18901 of 2010 -4- 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, 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 18901 of 2010 -5- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 18901 of 2010 -6- Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another (supra), FIR No. 115 dated 08.6.2010 under Sections 406,498-A,323 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Mullana, District Ambala, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. March 23, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE