Crl. Misc.No. M-6601 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc.No. M-6601 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.05.2011 Jumma ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Sarfaraj Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. P.S. Virk, DAG, Haryana **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.266 dated 06.11.2008 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 323/498-A/406/506/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Tauru, District Mewat and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of statement suffered by respondent No. 2 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nuh. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner and respondent No. 2/complainant got married in the month of June 2002 as per Muslim rites at Village Beri Nisfi, Tehsil and Police Station Tauru, District Mewat. A son was born out of this wedlock. After marriage, the relations between the petitioner and his wife got worst and they got separated with each other. The complainant was started torturing for bringing one motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- as dowry but the Crl. Misc.No. M-6601 of 2010 (O&M) -2- complainant due to fear of the society and for running her matrimonial life kept on tolerating quietly the taunts of the accused persons for a long period and kept on visiting her matrimonial house. They even started beating the complainant by giving fist slaps and fist blows In the above background, F.I.R was registered against the accused. However, during investigation of the F.I.R, Mohrbi and Kamru were found innocent and challan was presented against the petitioner . During the pendency of the trial, the parties have compromised the matter. A statement was made by respondent No. 2 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nuh in the application under Section 12, Act 2005 for providing protection to the women from domestic violence. In this statement, she has taken back her petition under the Act and do not want to continue it as she has entered into compromise with her husband. She has settled separately and has no connection with her husband and others. In compliance of order dated 15.03.2011, parties were directed to appear before the trial Court for recording of their statement. the District and Sessions Judge, Gurgaon has forwarded the report submitted by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nuh regarding compromise. As per the report, statement of both the parties were recorded . As per the statement of the complainant, she has deposed that the compromise has taken place according to their religion with the religion by the intervention of the respectable members of the society. Now both the parties are residing separately and she has conducted second marriage. Now petitioner will also be entitled for conducting second marriage. As per the statement of the petitioner, he has stated that due to interevention of respectable members of the society, compromise has been taken place and he has also conducted second marriage. Now they have no concern with each other. Crl. Misc.No. M-6601 of 2010 (O&M) -3- 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 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 Crl. Misc.No. M-6601 of 2010 (O&M) -4- 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 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 Crl. Misc.No. M-6601 of 2010 (O&M) -5- 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 judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (supra) and Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another 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 in view of the statements made by the parties, this Court has no hesitation to quash the present FIR No.266 dated 06.11.2008 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 323/498-A/406/506/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Tauru, District Mewat is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 17, 2011 G.Arora