Criminal Misc. No. M-10631 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-10631 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.9.2009 Nirmal Singh ...Petitioner vs State of Punjab and another ...Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent no. 1. None for respondent no. 2, Rajesh Bindal, J. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of FIR No. 30 dated 4.4.2006, registered under Section 498-A IPC at Police Station Islamabad, District Amritsar, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. The aforesaid FIR was registered on the statement of respondent no. 2- Narinder Kaur daughter of Paramjit Singh against the petitioner for demand of dowry. Now the parties have compromised the matter and sought quashing of the FIR on that basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no. 2 after getting decree of divorce has remarried and her present address is not known and her parents are not even disclosing the same. Considering the aforesaid facts and the compromise effected between the parties which was duly accepted by them during the divorce proceedings, I deem it appropriate to take up the case and decide the same in the absence of respondent no. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the parties had been compromised with the intervention of the well-wishers and keeping in view that parties could resettle afresh in life. Copy of compromise-deed has been placed on record as Annexure P-5, according to which claims/ counter claims of dowry etc. have been settled between the parties and no such claim of either of the party remained pending. As per compromise, the petitioner and respondent no. 2 appeared before the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, on 22.11.2008 and made the statements in the divorce proceedings. The statement Criminal Misc. No. M-10631 of 2009 (2) made by Nirmal Singh petitioner is as under:- “My marriage with petitioner no. 2 Narinder Kaur was performed on 16.9.2002 at Amritsar, according to Sikh rites and one female child namely, Manpreet Kaur has been born from our wedlock, who is now in the custody of her mother i.e. Petitioner no. 2. Since the performance of our marriage, we could not live happily on account of our basic temperamental differences and despite of best efforts, we could not reconcile and ultimately, we became separate and started living separately since July, 2005 and since then we are residing separately and there has been no resumption of cohabitation between us. Now, there are no chances of reconciliation between us and as such, we have decided to get our marriage dissolved by mutual consent. It has been agreed upon that minor daughter shall remain under the custody of mother i.e. petitioner no. 2 for all the times to come and I will not claim her custody. Towards past, present and future, maintenance and alimony of petitioner no. 2 my wife, I have given a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to petitioner no. 2 today in the court and in addition to this, I have also given Rs. 50,000/- towards past, present and future maintenance/ alimony of my daughter which has been received by petitioner no. 2 today in the court. Entire claims of dowry etc. have been settled and there remains no claim of whatsoever kind among us. We have executed a joint compromise Ex. CX after admitting and reading the contents thereof as correct and we shall abide by terms and conditions thereof. Our marriage be dissolved since we are litigating for last three years. So, period of six months may kindly be condoned for recording our second statement.” The statement made by respondent no.2/ complainant is as under:- “My marriage with Nirmal Singh was solemnised on 16.9.2002 and out of the wedlock, a female child namely Manpreet Kaur was born on 11.3.2004. Since the performance of our marriage, we could not live Criminal Misc. No. M-10631 of 2009 (3) happily and their remained dispute between us on account of our basic temperamental differences and despite of our best efforts, we could not reconcile. Now, we are living separate since July, 2005 and there are no chances of reconciliation between us. During the last three years, we have not cohabited with each other. I have received Rs. Two lacs as permanent alimony for me and my daughter and we have compromised as per compromise Ex. CX which bears my signatures as well as of petitioner no. 1 and we undertake to remain bound by terms and conditions of Ex. CX. Accordingly, our marriage may be dissolved by mutual consent. Waiting period of six months may be condoned as we are litigating with each other for the last more than three years and there are no chances of reconciliation.” Copies of the statements has been placed on record as Annexure P-3 (colly). On the basis of compromise and joint statement suffered by the parties, the marriage between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 was dissolved and a decree of divorce with mutual consent has been granted by Additional District Judge, Amritsar on 22.11.2008. The relevant extract of the order dated 22.11.2008 is reproduced as under:- “From the perusal of record, it transpires that originally the petition u/sec. 13 of Hindu Marriage Act was filed by petitioner no. 1 Nirmal Singh on 30.7.2005 and the same was contested by petitioner No. 2/ respondent Narinder Kaur by filing written statement, denying the allegations levelled therein, being wrong and incorrect. However, the course of proceedings, compromise was effected between the parties leading to the conversion of the petition to that u/sec. 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, on the basis of compromise deed Ex. CX. Considering the statements of both, given by the parties, reiterating their desire to seek divorce by mutual consent and the fact that there is no chance of reconciliation, the petition is, hereby, allowed and a decree of divorce is, hereby, passed thereby dissolving the marriage between the parties from today.” Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that once all the Criminal Misc. No. M-10631 of 2009 (4) disputes between the parties have been settled as per compromise, the FIR deserves to be quashed. Reliance has been placed upon a five Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh versus State of Punjab 2007 (3) Law Herald (P&H) 2225. A perusal of the order and copies of statements placed on record by the counsel for the petitioner shows that the parties had compromised the matter and agreed for withdrawal of all the cases filed by them against each other. Moreover, respondent no. 2 had also received Rs. 2,00,000/- as full and final payment towards alimony and maintenance. The contentions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, which are supported by judicial record, are deemed to be admitted. The Investigating Officer has also admitted the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties. Dealing with issue of quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise, a Bench consisting of five Hon'ble Judges of this Court in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra) while approving minority view in Dharambir v. State of Haryana, 2005 (2) Law Herald (P&H) (FB) 723, opined as under:- “27. To conclude, it can safely be said that there can never be any hard and fast category which can be prescribed to enable the Court to exercise its power under Section 482, of the Cr.P.C. The only principle that can be laid down is the one which has been incorporated in the Section itself, i.e., “to prevent abuse of the process of any Court” or “to secure the ends of justice”. 28. In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney Versus Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, (1980) 1 S.C.C. 63, Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the essence of compromise in the following words:- “The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.” 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. 29. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the Criminal Misc. No. M-10631 of 2009 (5) Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 30. 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 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 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. 31. The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice. 32. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para- meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restraint. The Court is vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, Criminal Misc. No. M-10631 of 2009 (6) harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society. 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.” Compromise in modern society is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. As observed by Krishna Iyer J., the finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion. Inherent power of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not limited to matrimonial cases alone. The Court has wide powers to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences in order to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice, notwithstanding bar under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Exercise of power in a given situation will depend on facts of each case. The duty of the Court is not only to decide a lis between the parties after a protracted litigation but it is a vital and extra-ordinary instrument to maintain and control social order. Resolution of dispute by way of compromise between two warring groups should be encouraged unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of society or would promote savagery, as held in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra). Keeping in view the enunciation of law as referred to above and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case, once the matter has been compromised between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the prosecution. Accordingly, FIR No. 30 dated 4.4.2006, registered under Section 498-A IPC at Police Station Islamabad, District Amritsar, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. The petition is disposed of accordingly. 23.9.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge