Ganish Kumar Monga v. Promila Kumari

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate with the petitioners. Mr.Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, Advocate with the respondent. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) As identical questions of law and facts are involved in the aforesaid petitions for quashing the complaint and summoning order (Annexures P7 and P8) respectively, arising out of the same incident, therefore, I propose to dispose of the same, vide this common order in order to avoid the repetition. However, for facilitation, the facts have been extracted from CRM No.M-17842 of 2010.

2. The matrix of the facts, which need a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant petitions, is that the marriage of complainant Promila Kumari (respondent) was solemnized with petitioner Ganish Kumar Monga on 11.5.2005, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at village Kundal, District Ferozepur. The parents of the complainant CRM Nos.M-17842 of 2009 & 15522 of 2009 2 were stated to have given sufficient dowry articles by spending an amount of Rs.4 lacs at the time of marriage, but the accused were not satisfied with the same. They started demanding the dowry articles and cash. Her parents could not fulfill their illegal demands, then they started harassing, taunting and maltreating her. Her parents convened Biradari Panchayats, to settle the matter, but in vain.

3. Levelling a variety of allegations, in all, according to the complainant, the petitioners harassed and treated the complainant with cruelty on account of and in connection with the demand of dowry. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the complainant Promila Kumari filed a criminal complaint (Annexure P7), in which, the accused were summoned to face trial for the commission of offences punishable under sections 406 and 498-A IPC, by virtue of summoning order dated 18.3.2009 (Annexure P8)

4. Felt dissatisfied with the launching of criminal prosecution, the petitioner-husband Ganish Kumar Monga filed CRM No.M-17842 of 2009, while the remaining accused filed a separate petition bearing CRM No.M-15522 of 2009 for quashing the complaint (Annexure P7) and summoning order (Annexure P8) in this context, invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC.

5. During the pendency of the present petitions, the 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 and peacefully.

6. In this manner, the petitioners have now claimed that the complaint and summoning order (Annexures P7 and P8) respectively be quashed, on the basis of compromise, inter-alia, pleading that as the petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce filed by the parties, was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda, by way of judgment and decree dated 8.1.2009 (Annexure P6), therefore, they do not want to prolong the litigation. In order to substantiate the validity of the compromise, the parties, vide their separately recorded statements, CRM Nos.M-17842 of 2009 & 15522 of 2009 3 reiterated and stated that they have compromised the matter with the intervention of respectables, friends and relations and prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings. They have broken all the relations with each other. The respondent would not pursue the criminal complaint (Annexure P7) and they have compromised the matter with their own free will and without any pressure. Their marriage stood dissolved by a decree of divorce (Annexure P6).

7. Such thus being the position on record, now the core question that arises for determination in these petitions is as to whether it would be expedient in the interest of justice to quash the criminal prosecution or not?

8. 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.

9. The theory of penology/strict punishment underwent a drastic change with the passage of time and the evolution of law of settlement appeared on the scene, which is primarily based on the theory of reformation of the accused. The statutory penal provisions of IPC pales into insignificance in the wake of insertion of new Chapter XXI-A of Cr.PC 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.

10. The epitome 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 CRM Nos.M-17842 of 2009 & 15522 of 2009 4 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 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. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is fully applicable to the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.

11. Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that as the parties have already compromised the matter, 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 petitions are hereby accepted. Consequently, the complaint (Annexure P7), the summoning order (Annexure P8) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are hereby quashed and all the petitioners-accused are discharged, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

20.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge