Crl. Misc.No. M- 4051 of 2011 v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Raghubir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG, Punjab for respondent No. 1 Ms. Nisha, Advocate for the complainant/respondent No. 2 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.606 dated 09.12.2003 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Jalandhar, and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise. The facts, in brief, are that the marriage of petitioner no.1 took place with respondent no.2 on 22.12.2002. No child was born out of this wedlock. Due to matrimonial differences between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2, an FIR was registered against the petitioners by the complainant-respondent no.2. Crl. Misc.No. M- 4051 of 2011 -2- After presentation of the challan and framing of charge sheet, when the case was fixed for trial, both the parties arrived at a compromise with the intervention of the respectable persons. The statements of the complainant as well as petitioner no.1 has been recorded in this behalf before the trial Court on 18.01.2011. As per the compromise petitioners agreed to pay a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- towards permanent alimony and expenses of the marriage etc.. Out of the agreed amount, a sum of Rs.3.00,000/- will be given at the time of quashing the impugned FIR and the balance amount of Rs.2.50,000/- will be given to respondent no.2- complainant at the time of passing of decree of divorce. In compliance of the order dated 08.02.2011, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court and get their statements recorded. Status report has been submitted with regard to the validity of compromise. As per the report of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, both parties appeared before the Court and made their statements. As per the statement of the complainant, she has admitted that a compromise has been effected in between the parties and has no objection if the FIR and the subsequent proceedings are quashed.. While recording separate statements of all the accused namely Rajbir Singh, Dilbag Singh, Balbir Kaur, Babli @ Tejinder Kaur and Lovely @ Davinder Kuar, it has been admitted that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. From the statements of both the parties, the compromise appears to be genuine. 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 quashing the prosecution when parties entered into compromise. The Full Bench has observed that this Crl. Misc.No. M- 4051 of 2011 -3- 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 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 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 Crl. Misc.No. M- 4051 of 2011 -4- 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 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 Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 910 has examined a case where quashing was sought of an FIR under Section 498-A IPC being non-compoundable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :- “Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the parties have settled their differences. It was submitted on behalf of the Crl. Misc.No. M- 4051 of 2011 -5- complainant Smt. Sadhna Madnawat that she is not interested in prosecuting the appellants. It may be pertinent to mention that the parties hail from cultured and educated families. It was also submitted that the appellant's parents are suffering from multiple ailments because of advanced age. The appellant's father is a retired Professor and Dean, Veterinary College, Mathura and he had undergone transplant of his kidney and the appellant's mother is suffering from multiple ailments and is virtually bed-ridden.” Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another (supra), the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), FIR No.606 dated 09.12.2003 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Jalandhar, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 06, 2011 dinesh