CRM No. M-20693 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-20693 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.11.2011 Satnam Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. N.S. Dandiwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Abhishek Chautala, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Opinder, Advocate, for Mr. A.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for respondent No.2. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.18 dated 24.3.2011 under Sections 307/34 IPC, Police Station Kabarwala, in view of compromise between the parties. Petitioner No.1 is the husband of respondent No.2 while petitioners No.2 and 3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has got registered one FIR i.e. FIR No.18 dated 24.3.2011 stating that being disappointed for giving less dowry to petitioner No.1, he caught hold respondent No.2 and pulled her down and then has put rope around her neck and tried to strangulate her, however, rope had been broken. Matter is at the stage of investigation and no challan has been submitted as yet. Meanwhile, good sense CRM No. M-20693 of 2011 (O&M) -2- prevailed and parties have reached to the amicable settlement, which is placed on record as Annexure P-2. Ordinarily when offence is non-cognizable in nature and amounts to crime against the society and is non-compoundable, criminal proceedings should not be directed to be quashed merely because parties have entered into compromise. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushil Suri Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2011) 5 Supreme Court Cases 708 while referring to its earlier decision in the case of Rumi Dhar Vs. State of West Bengal, (2009) 6 SCC 364, has observed as under:- “34. The view we have taken above, gets fortified by a recent decision of this Court in Rumi Dhar, wherein while dealing with a fact situation, akin to the present case, referring to the decision in Nikhil Merchant, the Court declined to quash criminal proceedings in that case, observing thus:- 24. The jurisdiction of the Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India is not in dispute. The exercise of such power would, however, depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and this Court, in terms of Article 142 of the Constitution of India, would not direct quashing of a case involving crime against the society particularly when both the learned Special Judge as also the High Court have found that a prima facie case has been made out against the appellant herein for framing the charge.” However, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 in paragraphs No.11, 12 & 13 has held as under:- “11. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. [(1988) 1 SCC 692], it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice CRM No. M-20693 of 2011 (O&M) -3- to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings. 12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. 13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial dispute by the courts, it was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their "cases" in different courts. 14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of Indian Penal Code.” Five Judges' Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that High Court has wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offence notwithstanding the bar CRM No. M-20693 of 2011 (O&M) -4- under Section 320 Cr.P.C. in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice; power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no limits. It has further been held by five Judges' Bench of this Court that where High Court feels that quashing is required to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court and otherwise to secure the ends of justice, High Court may quash the criminal proceedings. Even otherwise, in the present case no weapon was used and respondent No.2 is not said to have suffered any grievous or serious injury. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have married about 14 years back and have grown up children. Compromise is placed on record as Annexure P-2. Respondent No.2 has filed her affidavit in support of the compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondent No.2 have stated that to keep the cordial relations and harmony between the parties, this is fit case where this Court must exercise inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice. Mr. Abhishek Chautala, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, has fairly stated that although Deputy Superintendent of Police has filed affidavit opposing the quashing of the proceedings pursuant to the compromise, however, keeping in mind the age of the grown up children and relations between the parties quashing of the FIR seems to be justified. Although, as held by Honble Apex Court in the case of Sushil Suri (supra), if offence amounts to crime against the society there is no question of quashing of the criminal proceedings pursuant to the CRM No. M-20693 of 2011 (O&M) -5- compromise more particularly when Sessions Judge has found prima facie case against the accused. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 got married about 14 years back and have three grown up children and respondent No.2 has not suffered any serious or grievous injury and present seems to be a case pursuant to the matrimonial dispute and matter is yet at the investigation stage, therefore, in the interest of justice and to secure the ends of justice, I deem it proper that present proceedings pursuant to FIR in question must be quashed so that parties may lead happy married life and future of grown up children of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 may not suffer adversely. Present petition is directed to be allowed. Consequently, FIR No.18 dated 24.3.2011 under Section 307/34 IPC, Police Station Kabarwala, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, stands quashed and consequently all the criminal proceedings pursuant to the FIR in question stand quashed. (Alok Singh) Judge November 08, 2011 R.S.