Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhajan Kaur And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 11 February, 2011
CRM No. M 436 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
--
CRM No. M 436 of 2011
Date of decision: 11.02.2011
Bhajan Kaur and others ........ petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s)
Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
-.-
Present: Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate
for the petitioners
Mr. J S Brar, A A G, Punjab
for the respondent - State
Mr. Vaneet Soni, Advocate
for respondent No. 2 - complainant
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgement should be reported in
the Digest?
Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 61 dated 14.05.2002 under Section 498-A, 406, 494, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sadar Kapurthala which was got registered at the instance of respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 06.09.2010 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same is placed on record as Annexure P-6. CRM No. M 436 of 2011 2
It is stated by learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that complainant - Narinder Kaur is present in Court today. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has also filed reply by way of affidavit of Narinder Kaur. The same is taken on record. As per the affidavit, the matter has been compromised and the complainant-company has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.
In the present case, the matrimonial discord between petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 2 led to filing of the present FIR. Now, the matter has been resolved as per compromise deed dated 06.09.2010. Complainant do not wish to pursue the said FIR. Marriage between the parties has already been dissolved as is evidence from order dated 05.03.2005 passed by the additional District Judge, Kapurthala. Furthermore, Rs.6,00,000/- has been paid to the complainant by petitioner No.2 in lieu of permanent settlement.
It is pointed out by the learned State Counsel that petitioner No. 2 is a proclaimed offender. .
The matter has been compromised. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney vs. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others reported as (1980) 1 SCC 63, held that:-
"29. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320 (9) of the Cr.P.C. or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C."
While relying upon the aforesaid judgement of the Apex Court, this Court in the case of Jobanjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and others (Crl. M No. 10033 of 2009, decided on 29.07.2009) quashed the proceedings CRM No. M 436 of 2011 3 declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender by observing as under:-
"Keeping in view the enunciation of law as referred to above and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case, once the matter has been compromised between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the prosecution. Accordingly, order dated 23.12.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar (Annexure P-3) declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender, FIR No. 38 dated 05.07.2000, registered at Police Station Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar, under Sections 323, 325, 341, 148, 149 IPOC (Annexure P1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner.
Similar view by was also held by this Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab and another (CRM M 1238 of 2007, decided on 29.01.2007).
Taking into account the fact that the dispute was a matrimonial dispute also coupled with the fact that the matter had been compromised, this Court in the cases of Sarbjit Singh and others v State of Punjab and another (CRM M 52033 of 2007, decided on 27.01.2009), Pushpa Rani v. State of Punjab and another (CRM M 30341 of 2008, decided on 12.01.2010) and Sandeep Singh Brar and others v. State of Punjab and others (CRM M 28857 of 2008, decided on 12.02.2009) quashed the FIR even though the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender as all the disputes had been settled by way of compromise.
The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another-2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 CRM No. M 436 of 2011 4 has observed as under:-
"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 reduced 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 exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power."
The Apex Court in the case of 'Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:-
"6. We need to emphasize 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 the technicalities of the law."
The present dispute is purely personal in nature and the compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed. CRM No. M 436 of 2011 5
Taking into account the allegations, compromise deed dated 06.09.2010 as well as reply by way of affidavit of the complainant, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same, in view of the above settled proposition of law.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 61 dated 14.05.2002 under Section 498A, 406, 494, 120B IPC, P S Sadar Kapurthala and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed qua the present petitioners.
Allowed in the aforesaid terms.
(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 11.02.2011 mohan