Crl. Misc. No. M-14320 of 2011 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-14320 of 2011 Date of Decision: May 23,2011 Sandeep Kumar and another ....................... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...................... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Vijay Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S.Virk, DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2. ... RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) Quashing of FIR No. 134 dated 19.8.2009 under Sections 498-A/406/354/506/34 read with Section 120 IPC registered at Police Station Pinjore is sought on the basis of compromise. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2-Kamini Sharma had got married on 28.2.2008 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Pinjore, Tehsil Kalka, District Crl. Misc. No. M-14320 of 2011 [ 2 ] Panchkula. Due to temperamental differences between both the parties they could not live together under one roof and separated on 5.6.2009. FIR No. 134 dated 19.8.2009 under Sections 498-A/406/354/506/34 read with Section 120 IPC was registered against both the petitioners. Thereafter, a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed on 18.7.2009 which was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn on 15.10.2010. On 17.9.2010 a divorce petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage was filed and the same was decreed on 22.3.2011. The parties have resolved all the issues when the decree of divorce was passed. Counsel for respondent No.2 has put in appearance and has tendered the affidavit of respondent No.2-Kamini Sharma, who is present in Court and has been duly identified by her counsel. As per the affidavit, it has been agreed that the petitioner shall pay `3,00,000/- on account of permanent alimony to respondent No.2. The same has been paid and accepted by respondent No.2. All the conditions of the mutual agreement have been complied with and the complainant has no objection if the aforesaid FIR is quashed. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-14320 of 2011 [ 3 ] 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-14320 of 2011 [ 4 ] 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-14320 of 2011 [ 5 ] 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.” 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-14320 of 2011 [ 6 ] Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), and Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of M.P. and another 2008 (2) R.C.R (Criminal) 910, FIR No. 134 dated 19.8.2009 under Sections 498-A/406/354/506/34 read with Section 120 IPC registered at Police Station Pinjore is quashed. Petition is disposed of. 23.5.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE