Crl. Misc. No.M-4163 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-4163 of 2011 Date of decision. 09.05.2011 Rajesh Bansal and others ....... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Balram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Sh. Gurinder Singh Brar, AAG, Punjab for respondent No. 1-State **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No.205 dated 24.12.2010, under Sections 498-A and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station City Phagwara, District Kapurthala and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). Crl. Misc. No.M-4163 of 2011 --2-- The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the marriage of petitioner no.1 was solemnized with respondent no.2 on05.10.1998 at Phagwara as per Hindu Religious Rites and Ceremonies. Out of this wedlock, two children namely Vanshika Bansal(daughter) and Utkarsh Bansal(son) were born. On account of temperamental differences between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2, the instant FIR was registered against the petitioners. However, during the pendency of the trial, both the parties arrived at a compromise with the intervention of the respectables, friends and relatives of both the parties. During the course of compromise, it was agreed between the parties that petitioners will pay Rs.3,00,000/- in lump sum to respondent no.3 against her all sorts of claims including dowry articles as well as past, present and future maintenance. It was also agreed between the parties that the agreed amount will be handed over to respondent no.2 after passing a decree of divorce. It was also agreed between the parties that respondent no.2 will never claim the custody of minor children. In compliance of the order dated 09.02.2011, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court and get their statements recorded. Status report has been submitted with regard to the validity of compromise. As per the report of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara, the statements of parties have been recorded on 04.05.2011. Neerja Bansal, complainant and Rajesh Bansal, petitioner no.1, have made Crl. Misc. No.M-4163 of 2011 --3-- joint statement in the Court that they have entered into a compromise (Annexure P-2). The complainant in her statement has stated before the Court that she has already received a sum of Rs.40,000/- in cash and a cheque bearing No.873054 dated 28.7.2011 for an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- from Rajesh Bansal has been received. Both the parties also agreed that compromise(Annexure -A and Annexure -B) has been effected between them. Statements of the marginal witnesses of the compromise namely Tilak Raj and Bihari Lal have already been recorded by the Court. From the statements of both the parties, the compromise appears to be genuine. 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.” Crl. Misc. No.M-4163 of 2011 --4-- 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 enmity 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.” Crl. Misc. No.M-4163 of 2011 --5-- 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 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 Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another (supra), 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.205 dated 24.12.2010, under Sections 498-A and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station City Phagwara, District Kapurthala (Annexure P-1), is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 09, 2011 dinesh