Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jatin Punj vs State Of Punjab And Others on 5 April, 2011
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Crl. Misc. No. M-27031 of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-27031 of 2009
Date of decision : 05.04.2011
Jatin Punj .....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Sh. Munish Kumar, A.A.G., Punjab
for respondent No. 1 -State
****
RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.371 dated 22.11.2007 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 406/498-A of IPC, registered at Police Station City Kapurthala and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 07.08.2009(Annexure P-2).
Brief facts of the case are that as per the F.I.R, complainant got married with the petitioner on 03.07.2004 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Shagan Palace, Kapurthala and her parents also gave dowry more than they could afford as per the demands made by her in laws family. The total expenses incurred in the marriage were to the tune of Rs. 6 to 7 lacs but still her in-laws family was not satisfied. Her in-laws used to demand car from her parents and used to give her beatings for not bring sufficient dowry. So, they started torturing and harassing her in many Crl. Misc. No. M-27031 of 2009 -2- ways. In January,2005, when complainant was expecting a child, her in laws sent her to Kapurthala by saying that they cannot bear the expenses of her delivery. After that, she remained her at her parental house for 16 months During this entire period, neither petitioner (husband) nor his family members enquired about her. When the complainant or her parents tried to contact the parents of the petitioner, they used to demand dowry. During this time, complainant gave birth to a daughter but neither her husband nor his parents came to meet her and or enquired about their well being. Whenever complainant's parents tried to contact them they used to reply that they want a son only and since she given birth to a girl so the complainant was accused of increasing the burden on them and started demanding car from the complainant family. Anant Punj who is younger brother of his husband used to pass on threats on phone that she should not dare to step in Khanna otherwise they will break her legs and will also kill her. After this complainant's father discussed the matter in the Panchayat and also contact other close relatives of her in laws. After some pressure from complainant's parents her in-laws took the complainant and her daughter to Khanna but even then their behaviour did not change at all and they gave started to harass her. On 9 June 2006,they tried to kill the complainant by opening the gas pipe of the cylinder and asked her to prepare tea. When she went to kitchen to prepare tea, then she noticed the leakage of gas. At this, she tried to run out of the kitchen but the accused pushed her inside and tried to lit fire. She somehow by using force ran out of the house. Then she called her parents at Kapurthala and her father lodged a complaint n the Police Station City, Kapurthala.The police summoned her in-laws family in which the accused persons were present admitted their fault and requested for one more opportunity. But still the accused behaviour were not changed. Therefore, the complainants father Crl. Misc. No. M-27031 of 2009 -3- along with some relatives came to Khanna on June 24, 2006 and entered into a written compromise in the presence of some respected persons. This compromise was bearing signatures of her husband, father-in-law, Chacha ji etc. After this, her father brought her back to her parental home. But still the they kept on threatening her that they will eliminate her and her parent because of which her father remained under stress throughout the night and in the morning he died of attack.
In the above background, F.I.R was registered against the petitioner.
In compliance of order dated 28.01.2011, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala has sent the report. As per the report, statements of the complainant, Naveen Sharma (her brother) and petitioner have been recorded. As per the statement of the complainant, she has entered into compromise with the petitioner and she does not wish to proceed further against the petitioner in criminal proceedings. Petitioner also suffered the statement that compromise has been effected between the complainant and him. Naveen Kumar (brother of the complainant) also got his statement recorded and corroborated the version of the complainant. Compromise (Ex P3) has been reduced into writing and none of the parties have disputed the factum of compromise. Chief Judicial Magistrate has also sent the copy of statements of complainant (Annexure 'A') and the petitioner (Annexure 'B'). Copy of compromise has also been taken on record as Annexure 'D' .
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 power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone. The Crl. Misc. No. M-27031 of 2009 -4- 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 to 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 transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Crl. Misc. No. M-27031 of 2009 -5- 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 Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429 has examined a case where quashing was sought of an FIR under Section 406 IPC being non-compoundable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-
"1. No useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise - There was no possibility of conviction.
2 It is advisable that in the disputes where Crl. Misc. No. M-27031 of 2009 -6- question involved is of purely personal nature and no public policy is involved -
Court should ordinarily accept the
compromise.
3. Keeping the matter alive with no
possibility of conviction is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford."
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 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 judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (supra) and Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and Crl. Misc. No. M-27031 of 2009 -7- another and 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.371 dated 22.11.2007 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 406/498-A of IPC, registered at Police Station City Kapurthala is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner.
The petition stands disposed of.
(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE April 05, 2011 G.Arora