Crl. Misc.No. M-37843 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc.No. M-37843 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.05.2011 Krishan Lal and others ....Petitioners 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. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl. A.G, Punjab **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.93 dated 12.03.2010 under Sections 406/498-A of IPC, registered at Police Station Division No. 6, District Jalandhar and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the Crl. Misc.No. M-37843 of 2010 (O&M) -2- basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner No. 3 and respondent No. 2/complainant got married on 29.03.2009 at Doctor Ambedkar Bhawan Nakodar Road Jalandhar according to Hindu Rites. No child was born out of this wedlock. However, due to tempramental differences, the couple could not stay together and got separated. In the above background, F.I.R was registered against the accused on the allegations that she has been ill-treated and demand of dowry was made by her in-laws . After presentation of the challan and framing of charges, the case is now fixed for recording of evidence. However, the parties have compromised the matter. Respondent No. 2 has made a statement in this regard before Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar that she has compromised the matter with the petitioners and had already received dowry articles and now they are moving petition for dissolution of marriage with mutual consent. As per affidavit of respondent No. 2 she has entered into compromise with the petitioners. Both the parties have agreed to part ways and seek divorce by mutual consent. The parties have filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent vide Annexure P1. She has further no objection if the FIR and all other consequential proceedings are Crl. Misc.No. M-37843 of 2010 (O&M) -3- quashed against the petitioners In compliance of order dated 17.03.2011, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court for recording of their statements. A report in this regard has been received by Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar. As per this report, statements of all the concerned persons have been recorded. As per statement of the complainant, she has admitted the factum of compromise with her husband Kimti Lal and other accused. A joint petition has already been moved. In view of the compromise, she does not want to launch any prosecution against the accused party. She has no objection if the FIR against the accused is quashed. The accused also made separate statements admitting the effecting of compromise with the complainant. Both the parties have admitted the factum of compromise and has stated that the compromise is without any pressure or coercion. 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 Crl. Misc.No. M-37843 of 2010 (O&M) -4- 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 Crl. Misc.No. M-37843 of 2010 (O&M) -5- 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. Crl. Misc.No. M-37843 of 2010 (O&M) -6- 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 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 Crl. Misc.No. M-37843 of 2010 (O&M) -7- 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.93 dated 12.03.2010 under Sections 406/498-A of IPC, registered at Police Station Division No. 6, District Jalandhar, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 27, 2011 G.Arora