CRM No. M-33778 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-33778 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 28.03.2011 Ram Kishore and others ......Petitioners versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Shakun Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioners Sh. Kshitij Sharma, A.A.G., Haryana for respondent No. 1-State Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate for respondent No. 2 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No. 602 dated 06.10.2004 registered at Police Station Panipat under Sections 323, 342, 498-A, 406, 506, 120-B of IPC, and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of mutual compromise. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 got married as per Hindu rites in the month of May in the year 2001. But unfortunately, some misunderstanding cropped between respondent No. 2 and petitioner No. 1. As a result of this quarrel, the FIR was registered. During the investigation, the challan has been presented against the petitioners and charges have been framed. The marriage of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 has been dissolved, vide order dated 30.10.2009 CRM No. M-33778 of 2010 -2- passed by the Court of ld. A.K. Jain, Additional District and Session Judge Panipat. During the pendency of the trial, the matter has been compromised with the intervention of the respectables of the village/are and relatives of both the families. The compromise is Annexure P2. In the reply filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Head Quarter, Panipat, it has been stated that the FIR has been registered on the direction of ld. Illaqa Magistrate, issued under Section 156(3), on the complaint of Babli (respondent no. 2). It was also not disputed that after registration of the FIR, the challan has been presented and the charges have been framed, vide order dated 14.06.2005 and the matter is pending in the Court of ld. CJM Panipat and fixed for 27.01.2011. As per the compromise., it was agreed that petitioner No. 1 will pay total sum of Rs.1,30,000/- to respondent No. 2 in lieu of expenditure. In compliance of order dated 17.11.2010, a report has been submitted by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat. As per the report, complainant Balbir along with her father Harbir appeared before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat on 15.12.2010 and stated that she has compromised with the accused person and received Rs.1,30,000/- under the said compromise. It was further stated by Chief Judicial Magistrate that compromise has been voluntarily entered into between the complainant and the accused persons. 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 CRM No. M-33778 of 2010 -3- 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 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 CRM No. M-33778 of 2010 -4- 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 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 CRM No. M-33778 of 2010 -5- compromise. 3. Keeping the matter alive with no possibility of conviction is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford.” 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), FIR No. 602 dated 06.10.2004 registered at Police Station Panipat under Sections 323, 342, 498-A, 406, 506, 120-B of IPC is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE March 28, 2011 G.Arora