Criminal Misc. No. M- 18003 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 18003 of 2009 Date of decision:- 17.03.2011 Jasveer Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. K.S. Boparai, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl.A.G. Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Sukhmeet Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 251 dated 29.8.2003 under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Salem Tabri, Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise. As per contents of the FIR, marriage between complainant and petitioner No.1-Jasveer Singh was solemnized on 07.2.1999 at Village Manjh Faguwal,Tehsil and District Ludhiana. This marriage was performed by the widow mother and parental uncle of complainant after spending money more than their capacity. Out of wedlock a son was born. Rs.1.5 lac were spent on engagement ceremony by complainant's parents. Accused Jasveer Singh was given one golden bangle weighing 2.5 grams, two golden rings and 21 sweet boxes and Rs.11,000/- cash. Other family members of petitioner No.1 were also Criminal Misc. No. M- 18003 of 2009 -2- given as per detail mentioned in FIR. Her in-laws were not happy with the arrangements made in the marriage ceremony. Even after marriage her in-laws taunting her that they expecting Maruti Car and started beatings, maltreated and torturing her in order to bring more dowry articles. They behaved her like servants and in November 2001 she was turned out from the house with condition to come back with car and thereafter they demanded Rs.5,00,000/- more from her. In these backgrounds, present FIR was registered against the petitioners. During pendency of the trial, parties have entered into compromise and prayer has been made in this petition that FIR be quashed. Affidavit of complainant has been placed on record in which she has stated that due to intervention of respectables the matter has been compromised and she does not want to carry on the criminal proceedings against the petitioners and has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed against the petitioners. Further stated that a decree of divorce under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act has been passed on 20.12.2008. There is nothing pending or to be recovered against each other. In the reply filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rural, Ludhiana City dated 26.11.2009, statement made by Sukhwinder Kaur complainant has been annexed as R-1/T. In this statement she has stated that she has compromised the matter in the Panchayat and she has got the custody of her son Gurkirat Singh and has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed, pending in the High Court. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 18003 of 2009 -3- 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, 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 18003 of 2009 -4- 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 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) Criminal Misc. No. M- 18003 of 2009 -5- 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 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 910 (supra), FIR No. 251 dated 29.8.2003 under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Salem Tabri, Ludhiana, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. March 17, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE