Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Rattan And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 3 November, 2009
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.M-5511 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision:- 03.11.2009
Ram Rattan and others ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and another ....Respondent(s)
***
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
***
Present:- Mr.Rajiv Kataria, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.Ashok Kumar Jindal, AAG, Haryana,
for respondent No.1.
Mr.Anil Chaudhary, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
***
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
The present petition is for quashing of FIR No.106 dated 08.03.2005 under Sections 498-A/406/323/506/120-B IPC registered at Police Station City Thanesar, District Kurukshetra (Annexure P-1) on the basis of the compromise which has been entered into between the parties.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the FIR, a compromise has been entered into between the parties which is dated 19.12.2008, copy thereof has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. According to the said compromise, all disputes between the parties have come to an end and it was agreed upon between the parties that they would approach this Court by way of filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR in question.
Counsel for the petitioners states that the dispute primarily is a Crl.Misc.No.M-5511 of 2009 (O&M) -2- matrimonial dispute between the parties which had further aggravated leading to the filing of the present FIR against the petitioners. In the light of the compromise which has been entered into between the parties, he prays that the dispute having come to an end, it would be in the interest of justice that the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom be quashed. His further submission is that in the light of the compromise, a decree of divorce by way of mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has since been passed, dissolving the marriage between petitioner No.1-Ram Rattan and respondent No.2-Manpreet Kaur vide judgment and decree dated 20.12.2008. He, therefore, prays that the present petition be allowed.
Counsel for respondent No.2 on the basis of the reply submitted by the respondent No.2 states that a compromise has been entered into between the parties and in the light thereof, complainant-respondent No.2 does not have any objection if the present petition is allowed and the FIR and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.
Complainant-respondent No.2 Manpreet Kaur @ Bhagta @ Pinki daughter of Shri Sant Ram Saini is present in Court and has been identified by her counsel. She states that a compromise has indeed been entered into between the parties. The decree of divorce by way of mutual consent has been obtained by the parties to the marriage, which is an admitted fact. She further submits that she has no objection to the quashing of the FIR registered against the petitioners, at her behest. However, she contends that she may not be harassed in future by the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners has assured that the petitioners Crl.Misc.No.M-5511 of 2009 (O&M) -3- would not in any manner create any hindrance or do something which would give a feeling of harassment to the complainant.
In view of the above, the matter having been amicably resolved, which primarily being a matrimonial dispute, it would be in the interest of justice that the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom be quashed.
Keeping in view the statement which has been given by the complainant and the factum of compromise having been entered into between the parties which has been placed on record as Annexure P-3, the interest of justice would be duly served by quashing the FIR and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
A Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, while discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non-compoundable offence(s), has held as under:-
"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 amity 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 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 Crl.Misc.No.M-5511 of 2009 (O&M) -4- 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.
29. 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."
Therefore, in view of the discussion above, since the parties have amicably settled the matter, which is otherwise in the interest of justice and appears to have been effected to promote peace and harmony amongst the parties, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned FIR No.106 dated 08.03.2005 under Sections 498- A/406/323/506/120-B IPC registered at Police Station City Thanesar, District Kurukshetra (Annexure P-1) and all other consequent proceedings therein are quashed.
November 03, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE