CRM No.M-23056 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-11.10.2010 Ram Swami alias Sonu and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Sanjeev Sheokand, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Vikas Malik, A.A.G. Haryana. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The crux of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the core controversy raised in the present petition and emanating from the record, is that the marriage of complainant Meena Kumari (respondent No.2) was solemnized with Ram Swami alias Sonu (petitioner No.1) on 23.7.2007 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at village Ahirka, Distt.Jind. The parents of the complainant spent Rs.2.5 lacs in the marriage. All the dowry articles were entrusted to the accused. After some time of marriage, the accused started harassing the complainant for bringing insufficiency dowry and demanded Rs.51,000/- and a motorcycle. They gave beatings to her. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the complainant claimed that the petitioners-accused treated her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused, vide FIR No.264 dated 15.9.2008 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 406 and 498-A IPC by the police of Police Station Sadar Jind. 3. After the completion of investigation, the police submitted the final CRM No.M-23056 of 2010 2 challan/police report against the accused. The accused were charge sheeted for the aforesaid offences. During the course of trial of the case, the good sense prevailed and the matter was compromised between the parties at the intervention of respectables, friends and relatives. They have broken all the relations with each other and decided to live separately. During the pendency of the petition for anticipatory bail (CRM No.M-34521 of 2008), both the parties made the statements (Annexures P2 and P3). The statement of Meena Kumari (respondent No.2) is to the following effect:- “I have heard the statement of my husband Ram Swami alias Sonu. I shal be bound by the terms & conditions of the compromise stated by him in his statement recorded today in the Court. The petition for divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act shall be presented before the District Judge, Jind, on or before 20.3.2009.” 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 after some time of marriage, some petty disputes took place between the parties and they started residing separately from each other. They filed a petition for divorce in the Court of Addl Distt.Judge, Jind, which was allowed, by virtue of judgment and decree dated 24.9.2009 (Annexure P5). Now they do not want to prolong the litigation. In order to substantiate the validity of the compromise, the parties have reiterated and maintained that they have compromised the matter with the intervention of respectables, friends and relations and prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings. 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 regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal CRM No.M-23056 of 2010 3 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 connection. 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 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 epitome 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 and property disputes, on the basis of lawful settlement. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is fully applicable to the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 9. As the parties have lawfully agreed to settle the dispute, therefore, 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. CRM No.M-23056 of 2010 4 10. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No.264 dated 15.9.2008 (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and the petitioners are acquitted of the charges framed against them, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 11.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge