Manju Rani and others v. State of Punjab and another

Mr. Arvinder Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sidharth Sarup, D.A.G., Haryana. Ms. Kavita Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) The compendium of the facts, which needs a necessary mentioned for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that the marriage of Sunit Ohri son of complainant Sudesh Kumari wife of Surinder Kumar (respondent No.2) was solemnized with petitioner No.1-Manju Rani in the year 2004. They started residing separately, owing to their temperamental differences. On 02.03.2008, the complainant was present in her house then the petitioners came there, forcibly entered her house and started beatings to thecomplainant and Sapna. They gave kicks, fist blows, slapped them and uprooted their hair.

Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the complainant that on 02.03.2008, the petitioners- accused caused injury to them. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of complainant-Sudesh Kumari (respondent No.2), the present case was registered against the petitioners-accused, vide FIR No.52 dated Crl. Misc. No. M-33401 of 2010 (O&M) -2-

04.03.2008 (Annexure P-1), for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 452 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Mahesh Nagar, District Ambala. in the manner indicated herein above.

2. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the challan/final police report against the petitioners-accused to face the trial for the indicated offences.

It is not a matter of dispute that, during the pendency of the case, good sense prevailed between the parties and they have amicably settled their disputes and entered into compromise deed dated 01.10.2010 (Annexure P-2).

In this manner, now, the petitioners-accused have directed the instant petition for quashing the FIR (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter-alia, pleading that both the parties have amicably settled their disputes at the intervention of the relatives. They have entered into a compromise. As per compromise, the parties will withdraw their respective cases instituted against each other. They have decided to dissolve their marriage by way of mutual consent by filing a joint petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act. They have also settled their disputes with regard to the payments of maintenance. The complainant has no objection, if the FIR (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings thereto, instituted against the petitioners- accused are quashed.

Not only that in pursuance of the order of this Court, the trial Court, after recording the statements of all the concerned parties, has submitted his report dated 04.12.2010,. The operative part of which is as under: “In pursuance of the orders of Hon'ble High Court, the parties in case titled as “State Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors.” bearing FIR No.52 dated 04.03.2008, under Sections 452, 323, 506, 34, were summoned and were directed to place on record the compromise, which was placed accordingly as Ex.PW1/A. Separate statements of the Crl. Misc. No. M-33401 of 2010 (O&M) -3- complainant and the accused persons were recorded. The complainant has stated in her statement that she has compromised the matter in FIR No. 52 dated 04.03.2008, under Sections 452, 323, 506, 34 IPC and has executed a compromise deed is Ex.PW1/A and as per the said compromise, she has no objection, if the instant FIR is quashed. Accused Mukesh Kumar, Manju Bala and Anju Bala have also recorded their statements to the effect that they have compromised the matter in dispute and have executed compromise Ex.PW1/A and that they are bound by this compromise and there is no objection if the instant FIR is quashed. As per the compromise, both the concerned parties withdrew their cases. Manju will withdrew the case bearing No. 65/08 under Sections 406, 498-A registered at PS Naraingarh. Both the parties shall be bound by their statements. Now the matter has been compromised between Sudesh Kumari, Mukesh Kumar, Manju Bala and Anju Bala. The statements of the parties were recorded in the open Court in my presence and without any kind of pressure upon the parties. The parties have admitted the compromise Ex.PW1/A in its true letter and spirit and have agreed to abide by the same. Hence, in compliance of the orders of Hon'ble High Court, I am hereby submitting my report alongwith compromise Ex.PW1/A and statements of parties, for its onward submission to Hon'ble High Court.”

Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that parties have amicably resolved their disputes.

Above being the position on record, now the sole question that arises for determination in this petition is as to whether the FIR deserves to be quashed in this respect or not?

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to me, justice would be sub-served if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter in this relevant direction. Crl. Misc. No. M-33401 of 2010 (O&M) -4-

What is not disputed here is that 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 in this respect 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.

The crux of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is that the power under section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 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 abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery if the statement is fair being free from under pressure. Meaning thereby, the High Court has unlimited power to quash the criminal proceedings, relatable to such like cases, on the basis of lawful settlement. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is fully attracted to the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.

As is evident from the record that in the instant case, as the parties have amicably settled their disputes, therefore, the compromise is in their welfare and interest. Thus, to me, 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. Crl. Misc. No. M-33401 of 2010 (O&M) -5-