Crl.Misc.No.M-2859 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-16.9.2010 Jatin Chadha & others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Yogesh Goel, Advocate with the petitioners. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr.Tarun Goomber, Advocate with respondent No.2. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The compendium of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of present petition and emanating from the record, is that the marriage of complainant-Radhika (respondent No.2) was solemnized with petitioner No.1 Jatin Chadha according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 15.1.2004. After solemnization of the marriage, the parties resided together as husband and wife at Ludhiana and one male child was born out of the said wedlock. The parties could not adjust with each other and due to the differences, the complainant-respondent No.2 lodged a criminal case against her husband and other relatives, vide FIR No.19 dated 29.2.2008, on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under sections 406 and 498-A read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Division No.8, Ludhiana. 2. Concisely, according to the complainant, although her father gave sufficient dowry articles including the jewellery, but the petitioners-accused were not satisfied with the same. They started demanding more dowry articles and abusing her as well as her parents in this context. They taunted her on one pretext Crl.Misc.No.M-2859 of 2010 2 or the other for bringing less dowry. Her mother-in-law was stated to have demanded a cash of Rs.11 lacs from her parents. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the prosecution claimed that the petitioners-accused treated the complainant with cruelty on account of and in connection with the demand of dowry. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint made by the complainant Radhika, the present case was registered against the petitioners- accused in the manner indicated here-in-above. 4. Having completed the investigation, the police submitted challan/final police report under section 173 Cr.PC (Annexure P2) against the accused in the trial Court. It is also not a matter of dispute that the parties have filed a joint petition (Annexure P3) for divorce by way of mutual consent, as contemplated under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the Family Court, Delhi after settling their dispute and their joint statement was recorded, which is (Annexure P5). During the pendency of the criminal case, good sense prevailed and the matter was compromised between the parties at the intervention of respectables, friends and relatives. They have broken all the relations with each other and decided to live separately. . 5. In this manner, the petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing the final police report (Annexure P2) and all subsequent proceedings thereto on the basis of compromise, invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia, pleading that the parties have made the joint statement before the Family Court (Annexure P5) and do not want to prolong the litigation. In order to substantiate the validity of the compromise, the parties, vide their separately recorded statements, have stated that they have compromised the matter with the intervention of respectables, friends and relations and prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings. As per joint statement of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 (Annexure P5), the parties reiterated that due to some temperamental Crl.Misc.No.M-2859 of 2010 3 differences, they could not adjust with each other. They are living separately since 15.8.2005 and compromised all pending matters. They filed a divorce petition by way of mutual consent in the Family Court at Delhi and do not want to prosecute the petitioners in the criminal case as they want to live peacefully and FIR No.19 dated 29.2.2008 against the petitioners be dropped/quashed. 6. Such thus being the position on record, now the sole question that arises for determination in this petition is as to whether it would be expedient in the interest of justice to quash the criminal prosecution or not? 7. Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to me, justice would be sub-served if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter in this relevant connection. 8. The theory of penology/strict punishment underwent a drastic change with the passage of time and the evolution of law of settlement appear on the scene, which is primarily based on the theory of reformation of the accused. The statutory penal provision pales into insignificance in the wake of insertion of new Chapter XXI-A by Amendment Act No.2 of 2006 and amendment in expansion of scope of compounding the offences under section 320 Cr.PC. At the same time, the law of settlement of criminal disputes by virtue of compromise is not res- integra and is well settled. The clear and explicit intention of the Legislature was transformed in reality by Hon'ble Apex Court in cases Manoj Sharma v. State & Ors. 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 827; B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana 2003 (2) RCR (Crl.) 888 (SC) and Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052. 9. The crux of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is that the power under section 482 Cr.PC has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Crl.Misc.No.M-2859 of 2010 4 Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever- lasting congeniality in society and resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is adhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery if the statement is fair being free from under pressure. 10. Meaning thereby, the High Court has unlimited power to quash the criminal proceedings, relatable to matrimonial and property disputes, on the basis of lawful settlement within the frame work and restriction depicted by Hon'ble Apex Court. 11. As is evident from the record that in the instant case, the parties are lawfully agreed to settle the dispute. The restriction of heinous offences emanating from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manoj Sharma's case (supra) is not at all attracted to the present case. Therefore, to my mind, there is no impediment in translating the wishes of the parties into reality and to quash the criminal prosecution to set the matter at rest to enable them to live in peace and to enjoy the life and liberty in a dignified manner as guaranteed by and as contemplated in the Constitution of India. 12. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No.19 dated 29.2.2008/final police report (Annexure P2) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and all the accused are discharged, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 13. Needless to say that the seized dowry articles will be released in favour of Radhika respondent No.2 by the concerned authorities. 16.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge