Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vicky vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 December, 2010
Crl. Misc. No.M-7839 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No.M-7839 of 2010
Date of Decision: 21.12.2010
Vicky
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present:- Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Munish Kumar, A.A.G., Punjab
for the respondent-State.
Mr. P.L. Singla, 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.
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the FIR No.239 dated 02.11.2008 registered for offences under Sections 323, 324 and 307 IPC at Police Station B-Division, Amritsar and further proceedings arising out of the same on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
It is stated that the petitioner and respondent No.2-Rekha Kumari were married on 20.02.2007 and both of them lived and cohabited together peacefully. There was complete harmony in the matrimonial relationship. Resultantly, Rekha Kumari gave birth to a male child out of the wedlock. On 31.10.2008, petitioner and respondent No.2 had gone to Crl. Misc. No.M-7839 of 2010 2 the house of respondent No.3 (mother of respondent No.2) for a curtsey visit but some brawl took place between the husband and wife while discussing some trivial domestic matter. The petitioner No.1 got enraged and under the heat of passion and sudden provocation inflicted injuries to respondent Nos.2 and 3 without premeditation and with intention. The respondent No.2 reported the occurrence to the police station and on the basis of her statement, FIR No. 239 dated 02.11.2008 was registered for offences under Sections 323, 324 and 307 IPC at Police Station B-Division, Amritsar and subsequently, one of the injury was declared to be dangerous to life and offence under Section 307 was also added. Some respectable persons and relations intervened in the matter and got the dispute resolved so that the matrimonial relationship may be saved particularly keeping in view the welfare of the minor child. As per the compromise, the parties have decided to live together and revive the matrimonial relationship.
On 13.05.2010, Rekha Kumari-respondent No.2 appeared in the Court and filed her affidavit. She is wife of the petitioner. In her affidavit, she has stated that the matter has been compromised and she has no objection, if the FIR is quashed qua the present petitioner. Similarly, Maya Devi-respondent No.3, mother of respondent No.2 also appeared on the same day and filed her affidavit in the Court stating therein that the matter has been resolved and his son-in-law had undertaken to rehabilitate her daughter in the matrimonial home and live in peacefully. There is no grudge left between them. She and her daughter do not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings.
However, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is still in judicial custody. No doubt, the dispute was between the husband and wife but the allegations in the FIR were found to be serious. Respondent no.2, the wife of the petitioner, therefore, had no opportunity to find out as to whether the conduct and behaviour of the petitioner towards Crl. Misc. No.M-7839 of 2010 3 her had improved and whether the compromise entered into between them was bonafide. Thus, this Court, vide order dated 13.05.2010, after taking into consideration the compromise, stayed the proceedings before the trial Court and ordered to release the petitioner on bail and the matter was adjourned for further consideration to 07.10.2010. The matter was adjourned for almost five times to enable the petitioner to see if the compromise was genuine and whether they could still live together as husband and wife. On 07.10.2010, the following order was passed :-
" The parties are present in the Court today. They appear to be happy together. However, the Court requires that the parties should be kept under more surveillance.
Accordingly, adjourned to 21.12.2010."
Today, the petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3 are again present in the Court. The family looks visibly happy together. Accordingly, the statement of respondent No.2 was recorded. As per the statement of respondent No.2-complainant, who is the wife of the petitioner, the matter has been compromised. It was stated by her that she is happily residing with her husband ever since the day he was released from jail. It was further stated that his conduct and behaviour towards her had improved. It was further stated that although, she already had a son out of the said wedlock, she is pregnant for the second time out of this wedlock.
Respondent no.2 is very clear with respect to her stand. The Court is satisfied that the compromise is genuine. The girl pleaded before this Court that the FIR be quashed for the sake of her child, as well as, the child who is yet to be born. She wanted to reside with her husband peacefully and without any pressure of fighting litigation and harassment of regular visits to the Court. The offence may have been serious but the same still arises out of a matrimonial dispute. In a matrimonial relation, `forgive and forget' between the partners is also one of the watch words for Crl. Misc. No.M-7839 of 2010 4 a long lasting relationship.
The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. 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."
In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. 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 Crl. Misc. No.M-7839 of 2010 5 the technicalities of the law."
The compromise will not only allow the parties to sink their differences but allow them to come together and live together as a family.
Thus, in the interest of justice and in view of the peculiar facts of the present case, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.239 dated 02.11.2008 registered under Sections 323, 324 and 307 IPC at Police Station B-Division, Amritsar and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed in the interest of justice and to allow the parties to live together as a family.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR) 21.12.2010 JUDGE gurpreet