Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Wadhwa vs State Of Punjab And Another on 17 January, 2012
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Criminal Misc.No.M-523 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.No.M-523 of 2011
Date of Decision:17.01.2012
Sandeep Wadhwa ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Jasdev Singh Brar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab,
for respondent No.1-State.
Ms.Deepa Jain, Advocate,
for Mr.Malkiat Singh, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
****
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(oral) The matrix of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present petition and emanating from the record is that, the marriage of petitioner-Sandeep Wadhwa was solemnised with complainant- respondent No.2-Priti Bala(for brevity "the complainant") on 02.09.2004 according to the Hindu Rites and Ceremonies, at Kings Hotel, Jalandhar. It was the second marriage of the parties. The father of the complainant was stated to have given sufficient dowry articles according to his capacity, at the time of marriage including the Indica Car. The petitioner and his father were not satisfied with the dowry articles. The complainant claimed that they used to beat and treat her with cruelty, in connection with and on account of demand of dowry under the influence of liquor. The father of the complainant could not fulfill the demand of dowry of the petitioner and his father. Ultimately, they turned the complainant out of her matrimonial home.
Criminal Misc.No.M-523 of 2011 2
2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the complainant(wife) that, the petitioner and his father has treated her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the present case was registered against the petitioner-accused vide FIR No.93 dated 17.07.2010(Annexure P-11), on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, by the police of Police Station Goraya, District Jalandhar, in the manner described hereinabove.
3. The petitioner did not feel satisfied with the lodging of the criminal case and preferred the present petition, challenging the impugned FIR(Annexure P-11) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phillaur, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C.
4. During the pendency of this petition, good sense prevailed, the parties have amicably settled their disputes and re-started residing together as a husband and wife. Keeping in view the factum of compromise, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Rajan Gupta, J.) passed the following order on September 07, 2011:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for respondent No.2 submit that there has been a compromise between the parties and they are living together at present. Learned counsel appearing for complainant/respondent No.2 seeks to place on record affidavit of the complainant.
The prayer is allowed. Affidavit is taken on record. To come up on 17.1.2012.
Interim order to continue."
5. In pursuance thereof, another affidavit dated 17.01.2012 filed on behalf of complainant-Priti Bala, is taken on record as Annexure "RX", which in substance is as under:-
"1. That the deponent had lodged FIR No.93 dated 17.07.2010 under Criminal Misc.No.M-523 of 2011 3 Section 406/498-A IPC at P.S. Goraya, Tehsil Phillaur, Distt., Jalandhar against the petitioner.
2. That now with the intervention and indulgence of the respectable members of the society, the misunderstanding between both the parties was got resolved before respectables and now the deponent and the petitioner are residing together happily.
3. That deponent has no objection if the above said FIR No.93 dated 17.07.2010 under Section 406/498-A IPC at P.S. Goraya, Tehsil Phillaur, Distt., Jalandhar, is quashed.
4. That the deponent has given statement with her full senses and without any fear and from any side and without any greed, which is correct as per my knowledge."
6. Meaning thereby, the parties have settled their disputes in the manner depicted hereinabove. Moreover, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the impugned FIR(Annexure P-11) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are liable to be quashed, in view of the compromise between the parties.
7. Such, thus, 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?
8. Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, the answer must obviously be in the affirmative, as to my mind, justice would be sub-served, if the impugned FIR(Annexure P-11) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed and the parties are allowed to live in peace after settlement of their disputes.
9. Sequelly, the law of settlement of criminal disputes by virtue of compromise between the parties is no more res integra and is well settled. The clear and explicit intention of the Legislature in this regard was transformed in reality by the Hon'ble Supreme 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.
Criminal Misc.No.M-523 of 2011 4
10. The epitome 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. That means, the High Court has unlimited power to quash the criminal proceedings, relatable to such matrimonial disputes, on the basis of lawful settlement. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgments "mutatis mutandis" is fully applicable in this case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.
11. As is evident from the record that in the present case, as the parties have lawfully agreed to settle the disputes by way of affidavit(Annexure "RX") and are now residing as husband and wife peacefully, therefore, 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.
12. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR No.93 dated 17.07.2010(Annexure P-11) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed and the petitioner is accordingly discharged from the indicated case, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
January 17, 2012 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR)
seema JUDGE
Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No
Criminal Misc.No.M-523 of 2011 5
Criminal Misc.No.M-523 of 2011 6