Crl. Misc.No. M-3262 of 2011 & Crl. Misc.No. M-35457 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc.No. M-3262 of 2011 Date of decision : 21.04.2011 Gurjeet Singh and another ....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents Crl. Misc.No. M-35457 of 2010 Joginder Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ...Respondent 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. N.L. Sammi, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl. Misc.No. M-35457 of 2010. Mr. R.K. Trikha, Advocate for the petitioners in Crl. Misc.No. M-3262 of 2011 Mr. Guninder Singh Brar, AAG, Punjab for respondent No. 1-State Mr. B.S. Sodhi, Advocate for respondent No. 2 in Crl. Misc.No. M-3262 of 2011 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) This judgment will dispose of Crl. Misc.No. M-3262 of 2011 and Crl. Misc.No. M-35457 of 2010 as they arise out of the same First Information Report. However, facts have been extracted from Crl. Misc.No. M-3262 of 2011. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Crl. Misc.No. M-3262 of 2011 & Crl. Misc.No. M-35457 of 2010 -2- Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.16 dated 29.01.2010 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 307/498-A/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur,final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C filed under Section 328/498-A/34 of IPC, charge sheet dated 05.08.2010 under Section 498-A/328/34 IPC and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 24.01.2011. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner and respondent No. 2/complainant got married as per complete rites and ceremonies. They have one daughter who is aged about one year. After 6/7 months of marriage, complainant's father-in-law and husband-petitioner started harassing him on the account that they need a car in dowry and asked her to bring money from her parents for the car. She told this to her parents who alongwith the Panchayat came to Manjeet Singh Sarpanch of village Langeri, where they reached at an oral compromise with each other to the effect that her husband and father- in-law neither would harass her in any way nor would gave beatings to her. But, on 29.01.2010, in the evening, when complainant was working in the kitchen her father-in-law came there and forcibly caught of her and asked her to give a kiss to him. She pushed him and thereafter, petitioner No. 2 called her husband and asked him that she has pushed him and insulted him and she should be killed now. Thereafter, her husband caught hold of her and her father-in-law put some poisonous grey coloured powder in her mouth. Suddenly, their nieghbour came there and from his mobile phone, he called at her parental house and told all this to them. Thereafter complainant's parents came there and brought her to Civil Hospital, Mahilpur in a car for treatment. In the above background, F.I.R was registered against the petitioners. After investigation of the F.I.R, challan was presented Crl. Misc.No. M-3262 of 2011 & Crl. Misc.No. M-35457 of 2010 -3- against the petitioners under Sections 307/498-A/34/328 of IPC and charges were framed on 05.08.2010. After the complainant had given her statement as P.W.1, the parties arrived at a compromise amicably on 24.01.2011 (Annexure P5). It was decided that one daughter namely Amrandeep Kaur who is born out of their wedlock will remain in the custody of the complainant. She has further stated that the payment of `13,00,000/- has been made to the complainant in her account bearing No. 2925000108181298 through the representative/relations of the petitioner outside the Court for his present, past and future maintenance. She has further stated that four lac will be given at the time of recording of their first statement after filing of the joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Another sum of Rs. 4 lac would be paid by the petitioners to the complainant on or before the final date of decree in petition u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The complainant has further stated that they would not claim any sort of damages or compensation from each other and that they would not file any type of civil and criminal litigations in respect of the aforesaid matrimonial dispute. In compliance of order dated 02.02.2011, the District and Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur has forwarded the report submitted by Addl. Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur regarding compromise (Annexure P5). As per the report, statement of both the parties were recorded on 02.02.2011. As per the statement of the complainant and her grand- father, the dispute between the parties have been settled and the compromise deed (Ex.CI) was executed between the parties which was signed by the parties and attested by the grand-father and other witnesses. As per compromise deed, the complainant has received Rs.13 lac from the husband-petitioner. She has further agreed that she has no objection if the above said F.I.R is quashed. She has stated that Crl. Misc.No. M-3262 of 2011 & Crl. Misc.No. M-35457 of 2010 -4- since despite of best efforts they could not live together so they have decided to live separately and that both the parties would file joint divorce petition u/s 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act in the court of competent jurisdiction. Statement of Sarabjit Singh father of the complainant has also been recorded to the effect that due to intervention of respectables, all the matrimonial dispute have been settled between the parties and the compromise has been executed with free will and consent of the parties. Due to this compromise, both the parties will now lead a peaceful and harmonious life. Statement of Pishora lal, Lamberdar of village has been record in which he has stated that with the intervention of respectables, all the matrimonial dispute have been settled between the parties and the parties have entered into compromise with free will and consent. Similarly, statements were suffered by the accused party that the complainant has received a sum of `13,00,000/- towards full and final settlement Respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and filed his reply by way of short affidavit admitting the factum of compromise and stating that due to intervention of respectable and relatives, the matter has been compromised with the petitioner Now, the complainant is having no objection if the FIR in question with consequential proceedings arising therefrom is quashed. The compromise is voluntarily and without any pressure. As per compromise (Annexure P-2), both the parties have settled the dispute amicably as per the conditions recorded in the compromise. Counsel for the respondent does not dispute the genuineness of the compromise/affidavit (Annexure P-2) annexed with the petition. The affidavit which is filed in the Court today is taken on record as Annexure A-1. Crl. Misc.No. M-3262 of 2011 & Crl. Misc.No. M-35457 of 2010 -5- 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 Crl. Misc.No. M-3262 of 2011 & Crl. Misc.No. M-35457 of 2010 -6- 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 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 Crl. Misc.No. M-3262 of 2011 & Crl. Misc.No. M-35457 of 2010 -7- 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 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), FIR No.16 dated 29.01.2010 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 307/498-A/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Mahilpur, Crl. Misc.No. M-3262 of 2011 & Crl. Misc.No. M-35457 of 2010 -8- District Hoshiarpur,final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C filed under Section 328/498-A/34 of IPC, charge sheet dated 05.08.2010 under Section 498-A/328/34 IPC are quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petitions stand disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE April 21, 2011 G.Arora