Criminal Misc. No. M- 702 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 702 of 2010 Date of decision:-19.4.2011 Sandeep Kumar and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Anhul Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S. Virk, DAG Haryana for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Som Nath Gaur, 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. 130 dated 17.7.2008 under Sections 406,495- A,323,427,307,201 and 506 IPC (later challaned under Sections 323,406,498-A and 506 IPC), registered at Police Station Chandi Mandir, District Panchkula (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise. As per FIR, marriage between complainant and petitioner No.1 was solemnized on 10.3.2008. Sufficient dowry articles were given in the marriage by parents of complainant. Accused Sandeep Kumar Sharma, Jiwan Kumar, Pawan Kumar, Tara Devi and Anju Sharma were not satisfied with the dowry and during the stay of complainant in her matriminial home, she was physically and mentally tortured by the accused persons mercilessly. On many occasions she was severally beaten by the accused persons. In this background, the FIR was Criminal Misc. No. M- 702 of 2010 -2- registered. After investigation, the police had filed the challan in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panchkula under Sections 323, 406, 498-A and 506 IPC. During the pendency of trial, the misunderstanding and differences removed resulted into compromise. They have mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage. Annexure P-3 is compromise deed dated 22.11.2009. The affidavit of complainant is Annexure P-4 dated 26.11.2009. On notice, counsel for respondent No.2 put in appearance and tendered the affidavit of respondent No.2-Arti Sharma. She is present in the Court and identified by her counsel. As per affidavit, the marriage of the parties has since been dissolved. After compromise effected on 22.11.2009, divorce petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed in the Court of the District Judge, Panchkula. The marriage has been dissolved vide order dated 3.6.2010. It has also been agreed that the FIR in question be quashed from the High Court on the basis of said compromise. Complainant has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed qua the petitioners. 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.” Criminal Misc. No. M- 702 of 2010 -3- 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 highway robbery, dacoity or a case involving clear-cut allegations of rape should Criminal Misc. No. M- 702 of 2010 -4- 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 interested in prosecuting the appellants. It may be pertinent Criminal Misc. No. M- 702 of 2010 -5- 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. 130 dated 17.7.2008 under Sections 406,495-A,323,427,307,201 and 506 IPC (later challaned under Sections 323,406,498-A and 506 IPC), registered at Police Station Chandi Mandir, District Panchkula, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. April 19, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE