Criminal Misc. No. M- 37306 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 37306 of 2010 Date of decision:- 17.03.2011 Rupinder Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Saurabh Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl.A.G. Punjab for respondent no.1-State. Mr. Narender Lucky, Advocate for respondent No.2. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 396 dated 26.12.2004 under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Kot Barnala, District Barnala (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise. As per contents of FIR, on 13.12.2004 complainant-Jasvir Kaur recorded her statement that around six years back she was married to Rupinder Singh (petitioner No.1) She stated that at the time of marriage her mother and father gave dowry. After 2-3 months of marriage, her husband Rupinder Singh, mother-in-law Sawranjit Kaur and father-in-law Harjit Singh started maltreating her and demanded Rs.50,000/-. On showing disability, she was beaten by the petitioners and her husband left her in her parental house. At that time, complainant was pregnant and remained in her parental house for around eight Criminal Misc. No. M- 37306 of 2010 -2- months. A baby girl was born out of said wedlock. After 1-½ father of complainant left her to her matrimonial home and gave one gold ring to petitioner No.1 and one gold bangle and a set of gold ear ring to her mother-in- law. After 15 days her mother-in-law again started blaming her and started beating her. The matter was got compromised with intervention of respectables between both families. Thereafter parents of complainant many times fulfilled the demands of petitioners but they were not satisfied and continue to maltreat the complainant for more dowry and usually gave beatings to her. In this background, the present FIR was registered against the petitioners. During the pending proceedings, the matter was compromised between the parties. Affidavit of respondent No.2-Jasvir Kaur filed in the Court, in which she disclosed that she has compromised the matter with the petitioners and has already received Rs.11,00,000/- in lump sum as maintenance amount for herself and her two minor children and also against the istridhan given by her parents in the marriage and stated that she does not want to take any legal action against the petitioners and there is no grudge 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 37306 of 2010 -3- 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, 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 37306 of 2010 -4- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 37306 of 2010 -5- 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), FIR No. 396 dated 26.12.2004 under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 910 (supra), registered at Police Station Kot Barnala, District Barnala, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. March 17, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE