Crl. Misc.No. M-7213 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc.No. M-7213 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.04.2011 Parvinder Singh ......Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Rajesh Bhatheja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Guninder Singh Brar, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.1-State Mr. Sherry K. Singla , Advocate, for respondent No. 2 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.149 dated 23.03.2009 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 406/498-A of IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Patiala and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of statement of respondent No. 2 given on 4.9.2010 recorded before the JMIC Patiala(Annexure P-2). Brief facts of the case are that as per the F.I.R, complainant got married with the petitioner on 30.03.2008 as per Sikh Ritual and rites in Pacific Resort Factory area, Patiala and her parents also gave dowry articles saying these articles are meant for her daughter and the same should be given to her as and when she requires the same. After marriage, petitioner and complainant started residing in Shimla. After marriage, the family of the petitioner started harassing the complainant and also started taunting her to the effect that her father has shamed them in the society by giving meager dowry in the Crl. Misc.No. M-7213 of 2011 (O&M) -2- marriage. They further asked the complainant to bring motorcycle from her father. But the complainant told them that her father has already spent a lot of money beyond his financial status. Thereafter, the accused gave beating to the complainant and mother in law of the complainant dragged her by pulling her hair and Preeti-accused slapped her. The complainant informed her parents on the phone and her parents immediately came to Shimla to see her daughter and met the accused persons who used to say that their daughter is not beautiful. The Panchayat came back after prevailing good sense upon the accused with a request that they will keep the complainant in a good manner. Then the accused persons remained silent for about 4 days, but they again started harassing by taking the demand of motorcycle. One day, the complainant was turned out of the matrimonial house and forcibly took her dowry articles, jewellery and gold ornaments and also threatened her to come back only with the motorcycle. They also started threatening to kill the parents of the complainant. In the above background, F.I.R was registered against the petitioner. During the pendency of trial, the parties have entered into compromise. As per annexure P-2, with the pursuance of lok adalat, complainant has compromised the matter with respondent. As per compromise, petitioner and complainant will file petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act on 22.09.2010 and she will received two lacs in lumpsum for his present, past and future maintenance and other articles. She has further stated that one lac will be given by way of bank draft on 22.09.2010 at the time of filing of petition u/s 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act and the remaining one lac will be paid by the petitioner at the time when the final decree of divorce will be passed. The complainant will withdrew present petition and further both the Crl. Misc.No. M-7213 of 2011 (O&M) -3- parties will move petition for quashing of F.I.R, which has been lodged by her. Both the parties have further stated that they will not initiate any further litigation against each other. In compliance of order dated 30.3.2011, District and Session Judge, Patiala has sent the report of Addl. District and Session Judge, Patiala. As per the report, petition No. 162 dated 23.9.2010 was pending in the Court. After recording statements of second motion, after six months waiting period, the petition was allowed vide judgment dated 01.4.2011. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has put in appearance today and supplied the photocopy of the petition, which is taken on record as Annexure A-1. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Patiala while passing the petition has recorded the statement of complainant as well as petitioner. As per the statement of the complainant, she has received Rs.1 lac by way of three drafts bearing Nos. 499924, 499925 and 499926 of 21.9.2010 amounting to ` 20,000/-, ` 40,000/- and ` 40,000/- respectively. Photocopies of the same were also taken on record are Ex.C1, C2 and C3. She further stated that residue amount of ` 1 lac shall be paid to her at the time of recording of final settlement. She has further stated that she will withdraw petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patiala on the day of recording of final settlement and even she will appear before this Court for seeking of quashing of F.I.R. She has stated that nothing is due towards each other. Respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and filed her 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 with a view to revive the harmonious, cordial and peaceful atmosphere and relations between the parties to put an end to the strained relationship between Crl. Misc.No. M-7213 of 2011 (O&M) -4- them. As per affidavit, respondent No. 2 has received an amount of ` 2 lacs as lump-sum further maintenance and compensation as settled between the parties. The parties have already taken divorce u/s 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act on 01.04.2011. Now she is having no objection if the FIR in question with consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed qua petitioner. Respondent No.2-complainant is present in the Court and has identified by her counsel. 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 No. 2 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-2. 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 Crl. Misc.No. M-7213 of 2011 (O&M) -5- 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 also fall in the prohibited category. However, the offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide may be permitted to be compounded Crl. Misc.No. M-7213 of 2011 (O&M) -6- 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 to mention that the parties hail from cultured and educated families. It was also submitted that the appellant's parents are suffering from multiple Crl. Misc.No. M-7213 of 2011 (O&M) -7- 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.149 dated 23.03.2009 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 406/498-A of IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Patiala is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE April 21, 2011 G.Arora