CRM-M-28057 of 2009 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CRM-M-28057 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 12.11.2009 **** Baksho Devi and others . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab and another . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.Balram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms.Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Mr.K.D.S. Sodhi, Advocate for the complainant. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.) for quashing of FIR No.303 dated 16.12.2008 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) at Police Station Sadar Phagwara, District Kapurthala on the basis of a compromise (annexure P-2) with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Apprehending arrest in the aforesaid FIR, petition, namely, CRM-M-3083 of 2009, seeking anticipatory bail, was filed by Baksho Devi (petitioner No.1 and mother-in-law of respondent No.2) in which it was alleged by the counsel for the petitioners on 1.4.2009 that a compromise has been effected between the parties towards full and final settlement in lieu of dowry articles for a sum of Rs.6.5 lacs. On 24.9.2009, this court in the aforesaid Crl. Misc. No.3083 of 2009 passed the following order:- CRM-M-28057 of 2009 - 2 - “Counsel for the respondent/complainant has brought to the notice of the Court that vide order dated 5.9.2009 passed by Addl.Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Phagwara exercising the powers of the District Judge under Hindu Marriage Act, marriage of Naresh Mahey and complainant Rekha Rani has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. As a matter of fact, compromise has been effected between the parties in terms of which the husband has to pay a sum of Rs.6.5 lacs to the complainant (wife) at the time of passing of decree of divorce. Counsel for the respondent/complainant informs the Court that out of Rs.6.5 lacs, a sum of Rs.4.5 lacs has been received in the proceedings under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 but the remaining amount of Rs.2 lacs are lying deposited in the registry of this Court. He further prays that an appropriate direction be issued to the registry of this Court to release the amount of Rs.2 lacs to the complainant. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that still the FIR in which the petitioner has applied for bail, has not been quashed. He also submits that the complainant be bound down for filing a joint petition seeking quashing of the FIR. After taking into account the facts and circumstances mentioned here-in-above, the registry is directed to release the amount of Rs.2 lacs which is deposited by the petitioner in the name of the complainant after due verification and the complainant is directed to co- operate with the petitioner for filing of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR. Adjourned to 12.10.2009. Interim order to continue.” CRM-M-28057 of 2009 - 3 - Learned counsel for the parties have stated that the decree of divorce by mutual consent has already been granted by the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Phagwara, dissolving the marriage of Rekha Kumari (respondent No.2) with Naresh Mehay (petitioner No.4). Rekha Kumari (respondent No.2), who is present in the Court with her father (Sh. Sodhi Singh), has also stated that in terms of the compromise (Annexure P-2) marriage has been dissolved and a sum of Rs.6.5 lacs, out of which Rs. 2 lacs are lying deposited with the Registry of this Court, have been received. She also states that she would not have any objection, if the FIR is quashed. At this stage, learned counsel for the State has submitted that both the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC are conspicuous in terms of Section 320 Cr.P.C., therefore, the offences are non-bailable. Facing with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported as Kulwinder Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab and others, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, to contend that this Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, can compound even non-compoundable offence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, and also the law that has been settled by the Full Bench of this Court in case of Kulwinder Singh (supra), I am of the view that since the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved and the grievance of respondent No.2 has been adequately redressed, therefore, the present CRM-M-28057 of 2009 - 4 - petition is allowed, FIR No.303 dated 16.12.2008 and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) NOVEMBER 12, 2009 JUDGE vivek