CRM No. M 34506 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 34506 of 2009 Date of decision: 23.09.2010 Amrinder Singh and others ........ petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for for the petitioners Mr. Vikram Jain, Addl. AG, Haryana for the respondent - State None for respondent No. 2 - complainant -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.56 dated 25.04.2008 under Section 406/498-A of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sirhind (Annexure P1) on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties before the trial Court. As per office report, notice issued to respondent No. 2 has been received back unserved with the report that 'she has refused to accept the notice by saying that do whatever you want”. Accordingly, respondent No.2 CRM No. M 34506 of 2009 2 is deemed to have been served. None has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 in spite of service. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that after some time of solemnisation of the marriage between petitioner No. 1 with respondent No. 2, a matrimonial dispute arose which led to filing of the FIR by respondent No. 2 against the present petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that with the intervention of the relatives and respectable, the matrimonial dispute between the parties has been settled. Petitioners No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have taken divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act by way of mutual consent. Petitioner No. 1 has also paid `7.5 lakh to respondent No. 2 towards her past, present and future maintenance and has also returned all the dowry articles. It is also stated that Respondent No. 2 has got recorded her statement before the Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib to the effect that she will withdraw all cases filed by her and will appear before the Court for quashing of the present FIR. In spite of her above said statement got recorded before the lower Court, she has not been appearing in this Court for making her statement in the present petition as agreed. Since, the matter has been resolved through a compromise and also lump sum amount towards the permanent alimony has been paid to the respondent, the continuance of proceedings against the present petitioners is a sheer misuse of process of law. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Shamim v. Smt. Nahid Begum reported as 2005 AIR (SC) 757 wherein, in some what similar situation, it is held that in view of the conduct of wife, in backing out from her statement, the continuance of CRM No. M 34506 of 2009 3 proceedings would be abuse of process of Court. In para 14 and 15 of the aforesaid judgement, it is held that:- “14. This Court in Ruchi Agarwal vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal & Ors. [2004 (8) Supreme 525], in almost a similar situation has quashed a criminal proceeding against the husband, stating : - "Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant having received the relief she wanted without contest on the basis of the terms of the compromise, we cannot now accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, the conduct of the appellant indicates that the criminal complaint from which this appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the respondents. 8. In view of the above said subsequent events and the conduct of the appellant, it would be an abuse of the process of the court if the criminal proceedings from which this appeal arises is allowed to continue" 15. In view of the conduct of the First Respondent in entering into the aforementioned settlement, the continuance of the criminal proceeding pending against the Appellants, in our opinion, in this case also, would be an abuse of the process of the court. The Appellant No.1, however, would be entitled to withdraw the sum of Rs.50,000/- which has been deposited in the court. We, therefore, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India direct that the impugned judgement be set aside. The First Information Report lodged against the Appellants is quashed. The Appeal is allowed. However, this order should not be treated as a precedent.” CRM No. M 34506 of 2009 4 The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another-2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has observed as under:- “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 amity and reduced 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 exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.” The Apex Court in the case of 'Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:- “6. We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” However, in the present case, the complainant has not come forward to contest the petition. Thus, the factum of compromise is not CRM No. M 34506 of 2009 5 disputed. Even otherwise, it is evident from the order and judgement dated 13.10.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib that the matter has been compromised, divorce granted by mutual consent and ` 7.5 lacs stands paid as full and final settlement and the respondent- complainant had duly made a statement that she will appear before the Court and make a statement that she has no objection if FIR is quashed. In spite of notice served upon her, she has neither appeared nor has contested the quashing petition. Taking into account the fact that there is no denial or dispute with regard to the factum of entering into the aforesaid compromise and also to the fact that respondent No. 2 has already received Rs.7.5 lacs towards her permanent alimony as well as that the dowry articles have also been returned to respondent No. 2, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the above said settled proposition of law. Accordingly, FIR No.56 dated 25.04.2008 under Section 406/498-A of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sirhind (Annexure P1) and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 23.09.2010 mohan