Criminal Misc. No. M- 2188 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 2188 of 2011 Date of decision:- 18.03.2011 Jugraj Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Ms. Sarman Phoolka, Advocate for respondent No.2-complainant. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 20 dated 06.5.2010 under Sections 498-A, 406, and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Phul, District Bathinda (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise. As per FIR, marriage between complainant and petitioner No.1 was solemnized on 28.5.2000 at Village Dhipaly. Petitioner No.3 at the time of marriage stated to father of complainant that after their marriage she will settle the couple abroad and demanded the money. Thereafter, father of complainant arranged Rs.2,50,000/- from one Malkit Singh son of Gurdev Singh and handed over to the accused. But they were not sent abroad. On 2.7.2001 complainant Criminal Misc. No. M- 2188 of 2011 -2- gave birth to a boy namely Bhupinder Jit Singh and father of complainant gave Rs.51,000/- cash and gold ring weighing five grams to petitioner No.1 on the occasion. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 and 2 used to beat the complainant in the greed of more dowry and through her out of the house. As per complainant, Petitioner No.2 was having bad intentions towards the complainant and many times tried to make physical relations with her. Petitioner No.2 also once tried to outrage her modesty when petitioner No.1 was out of house. The matter became worse and a panchayat was convened by the father of complainant. Petitioner No.2 ran away from the house and threatened to kill her, from his mobile No.9417441636 and other No.9464354897. In this background, present FIR was registered against the petitioners. During pendency of investigation, the matter was patched up between the parties and a compromise was effected. Respondent No.2-Veerpal Kaur appeared through counsel in the Court, identified by her counsel and filed her affidavit admitting the factum of compromise and stating that due to intervention of respectable and relatives, the matter has been compromised with the petitioners and it has been agreed by the complainant as per her affidavit that in lieu of past, present and future maintenance an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- has been settled and out of said amount a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been received by the complainant from petitioner No.1-Jugraj Singh today and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- will be deposited in the name of minor Bhupinderjit Singh son of partiesin the shape of fixed deposit to be payable after attaining his majority and Rs.1,00,000/- will be paid to the complainant after she suffer statement in proceedings under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act in final stage. She is having no objection if the FIR in question with consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed qua petitioners. Counsel for the respondent No.2 does not dispute the genuineness Criminal Misc. No. M- 2188 of 2011 -3- of the compromise effected between the parties. 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 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, Criminal Misc. No. M- 2188 of 2011 -4- 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 ratio of the Full Bench judgment is a special reference which has been made to the offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide where the victim dies in the course of transaction would fall in the category where compounding may not be permitted. Heinous offences like highway robbery, dacoity or a case involving clear-cut allegations of rape should also fall in the prohibited category. However, the offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide may be permitted to be compounded when the Court is in the position to record a finding that the settlement between the parties is voluntary and fair. The Court must examine the cases of weaker and vulnerable victims with necessary caution. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 2188 of 2011 -5- 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 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 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (supra) 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 Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another (supra), FIR No. 20 dated 06.5.2010 under Sections 498-A, 406, and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Phul, District Bathinda, is quashed Criminal Misc. No. M- 2188 of 2011 -6- with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. March 18, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE