Crl. Misc.No. M-7049 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc.No. M-7049 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.05.2011 Amit Anand ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab 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. R.K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Guninder.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab Mr. A.S. Sidhu,Advocate for respondent No. 2 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.82 dated 24.3.2010 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 406/498-A of IPC, registered at Police Station City, Sangrur and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of affidavit (Annexure P6) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner and respondent No. 2/complainant got married on 02.10.2006 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Sangrur. A male child was born on 20.7.2009 out of this Crl. Misc.No. M-7049 of 2011 (O&M) -2- wedlock who is in the custody of respondent No. 2. Due to some matrimonial differences, the parties got separated with each other. In the above background, F.I.R was registered against the accused. After registration of this F.I.R, petition filed anticipatory bail vide Criminal Misc. No. M-1205 of 2010 and during the pendency of the aforesaid petition, both the parties arrived at a compromise to the effect that petitioner shall pay to respondent No. 2 a sum of Rs.5 lacs in all including her and her son's past, present and future maintenance including the value of dowry articles. It was also agreed upon that custody of minor shall remain with respondent No. 2 for all the times to come. It was also agreed upon that petitioner shall pay to respondent No. 2 a sum of Rs. 3 lacs before filing of mutual divorce petition and Rs. 2 lacs at the time of final hearing of mutual divorce petition. Thereafter, petition paid a sum of Rs. 3 lacs and this Court had disposed off the criminal misc vide order dated 26.5.2010 (Annexure P2). Both the parties then filed a mutual divorce writ petition bearing No. HMA 64 of 2010 on 24.7.2010 before the District Judge, Sangrur and respondent No. 2 suffered a statement which is Annexure P3. Thereafter, District Judge, Sangrur dissolved the marriage of petition with respondent No. 2, vide judgment and decree dated 01.02.2011 (Annexure P4 and P5). On 12.02.2011 (Annexure P6), respondent No. 2 admitted the factum of compromise arrived, dissolution of marriage, receipt of Rs. 5 lacs which was handed over to her. She has further stated that she has no objection if the FIR is quashed. Respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and filed her reply by way of short affidavit admitting the factum of compromise and stating that due to intervention of respectable and relatives, the Crl. Misc.No. M-7049 of 2011 (O&M) -3- matter has been compromised with the petitioner and now she is having no objection if the FIR in question with consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed qua petitioner. Respondent No.2-complainant is present in the Court and has identified by her counsel. The compromise is voluntarily and without any pressure. As per compromise (Annexure P-6), both the parties have settled the dispute amicably as per the conditions recorded in the compromise. 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 Crl. Misc.No. M-7049 of 2011 (O&M) -4- 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 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. Crl. Misc.No. M-7049 of 2011 (O&M) -5- 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 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 affidavit given by respondent No. 2, this Court has no hesitation to quash the present FIR No.82 dated Crl. Misc.No. M-7049 of 2011 (O&M) -6- 24.3.2010 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 406/498-A of IPC, registered at Police Station City, Sangrur is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 17, 2011 G.Arora