Gurdeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Mr.M.K.Pundir, 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 Kamalpreet Kaur complainant-respondent No.2 was solemnized with Gurdeep Singh petitioner No.1 as per Sikh rites and ceremonies and no issue was born out of the said wedlock. The sufficient dowry was stated to have been given by the parents of complainant to the accused at the time of marriage, but the accused were not satisfied. They started maltreating her with cruelty and did not return the dowry articles to her.

2. Levelling a variety of allegations, in all, according to the prosecution, the petitioners 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 statement of complainant Kamalpreet Kaur, the present case was registered against the petitioners, vide FIR No.43 dated 4.4.2009 (Annexure P3) on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under section 406 IPC by the police of Police Station Division No.8 (Kailash Chowk), Ludhiana in the Criminal Misc.No.M-4233 of 2010 2 manner described here-in-above.

3. During the pendency of the investigation, 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.

4. In this manner, the petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing the FIR (Annexure P3) 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 executed the compromise deed (Annexure P1) and do not want to prolong the litigation. In order to substantiate the validity of the compromise, the parties, vide their separately recorded statements, reiterated and 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 compromise deed (Annexure P1), the parties reiterated that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have broken all the relations with each other; they would not make any interference in case either of them would marry anywhere; respondent No.2 would not pursue the criminal proceedings in FIR (Annexure P3); would make every possible effort including give her statement/affidavit before the High Court for quashing the FIR; they have compromised the matter with their free will, without any pressure or undue influence in the presence of respectables, common friends, near and dears; would be legally bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise and they would not raise any sought of claim against each other in future regarding the subject matter.

5. Such thus being the position on record, now the core 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?

6. Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the Criminal Misc.No.M-4233 of 2010 3 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.

7. 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 scheme, 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.

8. 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 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.

9. However, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manoj Sharma's case (supra), has restricted the scope of quashing the criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise in serious offences and ruled (para 33) as under:- Criminal Misc.No.M-4233 of 2010 4 “There can be no doubt that a case under Section 302 IPC or other serious offences like those under Sections 395, 397 or 304B cannot be compounded and hence proceedings in those provisions cannot be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.PC, or in writ jurisdiction on the basis of compromise. However, in some other cases, (like those akin to a civil nature) the proceedings can be quashed by the High Court if the parties have come to an amicable settlement even though the provisions are not compoundable. Where a line is to be drawn will have to be decided in some later decisions of this Court, preferably by a larger bench (so as to make it more authoritative). Some guidelines will have to be evolved in this connection and the matter cannot be left at the sole unguided discretion of Judges, otherwise there may be conflicting decisions and judicial anarchy. A judicial discretion has to be exercised on some objective guiding principles and criteria, and not on the whims and fancies of individual Judges. Discretion, after all, cannot be the Chancellor's foot.”

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 Criminal Misc.No.M-4233 of 2010 5 accepted. Consequently, FIR No.43 dated 4.4.2009 (Annexure P3) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and all the accused are discharged, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

13.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge