Varun Papneja and others v. State of Haryana and another

CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. S.M. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Pradeep Virk, D.A.G. Haryana. Mr. Raman Walia, Advocate for respondent No.2. ****

1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) The present petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been moved for quashing of FIR No.260 dated 9.6.2009 registered under Sections 498-A,406,506,34 IPC at Police Station City Jagadhri and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The FIR in question is a result of matrimonial dispute. Earlier, Criminal Misc. No.27982-M of 2009 was filed on merits on behalf of brother-in-law, mother-in-law and father-in-law. However, during the pendency of that petition, learned counsel for the parties made a statement that there is a likelihood of compromise between the parties. Accordingly, CRM M-27982 of 2009 -2- vide order dated 11.1.2010, the parties were directed to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court where the parties have entered into a compromise. Subsequently, Criminal Misc. No.12561-M of 2010 was filed on behalf of the petitioner-husband on the ground that the parties including the petitioner-husband have compromised the matter with the complainant before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. It is not disputed by the parties that the matter has been compromised before the Mediation and Conciliation of this Court. As per the compromise, it has been agreed by the parties that the petitioners shall pay an amount of Rs.25 Lacs as full and final payment in favour of the complainant as regard to permanent alimony, istri dhan, maintenance and all her claims regarding dowry etc. for all times to come and shall also file a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage. It has also been agreed between the parties that the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. pending in the Court at Jagadhri would be withdrawn by the complainant and she will have no objection in case this Court quashes the FIR in question. As per the compromise, respondent No.2- complainant has received Rs.5 Lacs out of the total agreed amount i.e. Rs.25 Lacs. It has also been agreed between the parties that the balance payment i.e. Rs.20 Lacs would be paid to respondent No.2-complainant in two instalments i.e. Rs.10 Lacs at the time of quashing of the FIR and the balance amount of Rs.10 Lacs would be paid at the time of grant of divorce before the competent Court. Separate statements of petitioner-husband and respondent No.2-complainant has been recorded in the Court today to the same effect. CRM M-27982 of 2009 -3- It is evident from their statements that respondent No.2-complainant has already received a sum of Rs.5,000,00/- and out of the balance amount i.e. Rs.20,000,00/-, she has received a demand draft of Rs.10,000,00/- in the Court today from the petitioner-husband and the balance amount of Rs.10,000,00/- shall be paid by the petitioner-husband to respondent No.2- complainant at the time of divorce as already agreed between them. He further undertakes to file the divorce petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Competent Court of Jurisdiction. It is further stated that they will be bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise. The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that 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 amity and reduces friction, then it truly is “finest hour of justice”. Disputes which have their genesis not only in matrimonial discord but others as well, such compromise deserves to be accepted. It is further held as under:- “ The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non- compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.” CRM M-27982 of 2009 -4- In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008 (4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under:- “ We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” Taking into account that the allegation in FIR, the compromise effected before Mediation and Conciliation Centre and the statements before this Court authenticating the compromise, it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.260 dated 9.6.2009 registered under Sections 498-A,406,506,34 IPC at Police Station City Jagadhri and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. The parties shall be bound by the compromise. The petitioner- husband shall pay the balance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- at the time of divorce. He shall duly file the divorce petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act within the time frame set out in the compromise. A photo copy of this order be placed in the connected case.

24.5.2010 rajeev ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) JUDGE