Criminal Misc. No. M- 6746 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 6746 of 2011 Date of decision:- 23.3.2011 Ram Kali and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl.A.G. Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Harshit Jain, 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. 5 dated 07.1.2006 under Section 406 IPC in which charge has been framed under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Rampura (Annexure P-2) on the basis of compromise. Brief facts as per FIR are that marriage between petitioner No.2 and respondent No.3 was solemnized on 15.2.2002. Out of the said wedlock a son was born on 18.11.2002. Due to some misunderstanding a dispute arose between the parties and they could not live together. A divorce petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act was filed by respondent No.3 on 27.5.2005. An ex-parte divorce decree was passed vide order dated 04.9.2006 (Annexure P-1). In the meanti,e respondent No.2 lodged the present FIR in question against the petitioners. Criminal Misc. No. M- 6746 of 2011 -2- During pendency of trial, a compromise was effected between the parties and they decided to part with and to dissolve the marriage by divorce. It was decided that the boy will remain with respondent No.3. All the dowry articles were exchanged between the parties and nothing remains to be paid between the parties. Copy of compromise is (Annexure P-3). As per compromise, entire maintenance amount of Rs.2,75,000/- has been given to Sh. Charanjit Singh Dhillon, Advocate, Civil Courts, Phul, who appeared on behalf of respondents, which was to be paid to the respondents after quashing of present FIR. Affidavit on behalf of complainant has been filed in the Court. Respondents are present and identified by their counsel. As per affidavit due to intervention of respectables compromise has been effected between the parties on 22.1.2011 as per which Rs.2,75,000/- as full and final settlement of all claims of respondent No.3 have been given to Sh. Charanjit Singh Dhillon, Advocate, counsel for respondents vide cheque No.416447 dated 21.3.2011 drawn at Punjab and Singh Bank, Rampura Phul Branch. This amount includes permanent alimony of wife and child and dowry articles etc. Now, respondents have no objection if the FIR in question alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom is quashed qua 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 6746 of 2011 -3- 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, 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 6746 of 2011 -4- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 6746 of 2011 -5- 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. 5 dated 07.1.2006 under Section 406 IPC in which charge has been framed under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Rampura, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. March 23, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE