Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjay @ Satbir And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 23 December, 2010
Author: S.S. Saron
Bench: S.S. Saron
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-30136 of 2010
Date of decision: 23.12.2010
Sanjay @ Satbir and another
.... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and Others
..... Respondents
Present : Mr. H.N. Sahu, Advocate for the petitioners with
Sanjay @ Satbir (petitioner No.1) in person.
Mr. K.C. Gupta, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2
and 3 with Smt. Rani Devi (respondent No.3) in
person.
***
S.S. SARON, J.
The petitioners Sanjay @ Satbir (petitioner No.1) and his mother Kasturi Devi (petitioner No.2) have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("CrPC" - for short) seeking quashing of FIR No.28 dated 15.2.2003 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Madhuban, District Karnal for the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A Indian Penal Code ("IPC" - for short) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom as the matrimonial dispute between Rani Devi (respondent No.3) and Sanjay @ Satbir (petitioner No.1) has been compromised in terms of the compromise dated 7.10.2010 (Annexure P2).
Crl. Misc. No. M-30136 of 2010 [2]
Rani Devi (respondent No.3) was married to Sanjay @ Satbir (petitioner No.1). Due to matrimonial dispute between them, the impugned FIR dated 15.2.2003 (Annexure P1) was registered at Police Station Madhuban, District Karnal for the offences under Sections 406 and 498- A IPC by the complainant Narpal (respondent No.2) who is the brother of Rani Devi (respondent No.3). The parties have now entered into a compromise and there is no objection to the quashing of the FIR (Annexure P1) from the complainant's side. Sanjay @ Satbir (petitioner No.1) and Rani Devi (respondent No.2) have a minor child namely Bhupinder Singh. He is physically and mentally handicapped since the date of his birth. He was born on 3.1.2003. Rani Devi (respondent No.3) in view of her weak financial condition had submitted that she was ready to handover the child to his father (petitioner No.1). This Court observed that the father (petitioner No.1) of the minor child had never been in touch with him and being handicapped to the extent of almost 100% it did not appear to be in the welfare of the minor that he should be given to petitioner No.1.
The matter between the parties had initially been resolved with a lump sum payment of `2,50,000/- to be given by Sanjay @ Satbir (petitioner No.1) to Rani Devi (respondent No.3) and the child was also agreed to be given to the petitioners. However, keeping in view the welfare of the child after deliberations, it was agreed that petitioner No.1 would pay `4.5 lacs to Rani Devi (respondent No.3) for Crl. Misc. No. M-30136 of 2010 [3] her maintenance and the maintenance of the minor child namely Bhupinder Singh. It was also desired by Sanjay @ Satbir (petitioner No.1) that a sum of `1 lac be deposited in some monthly income scheme in the name of the minor child under the guardianship of his mother-Rani Devi (respondent No.3). The petitioners tendered a draft bearing No.015791 dated 8.12.2010 for an amount of `3,50,000/- drawn on Axis Bank Limited, Karnal in favour of Rani Devi (respondent No.3). On the last date of hearing (i.e. 20.12.2010), the said draft was handed over to Rani Devi (respondent No.3) and it was accepted by her. A sum of `1 lac had been brought in cash which was also handed over to Rani Devi (respondent No.3). In fact the said amount of `1 lac was to be deposited in a monthly income scheme in the name of the minor child namely Bhupinder Singh. Respondent No.3 was asked to invest the said amount in the name of the minor in a monthly income scheme.
Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 has submitted that three monthly income schemes for an amount of `49,500/-, `49,500/- and `1,500/- have been opened in the name of the minor child namely Bhupinder Singh under the guardianship of his mother namely Rani Devi (respondent No.3). The account numbers of the same are 32057, 32058 and 32059 and they stand opened in the post-office at Karnal. Rani Devi (respondent No.3) shall be entitled to draw the monthly income arising out of the said scheme for the welfare of the minor child. Rani Devi (respondent No.3) is present in Court and identified by her Crl. Misc. No. M-30136 of 2010 [4] counsel. It is stated by her that she shall withdraw all pending cases, applications and complaints against the petitioners and their other family members as the case may be.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has also stated that if any case is pending against Rani Devi (respondent No.3) or her relatives, the same shall also be withdrawn by them. It is agreed that all proceedings filed by either party against the other shall stand terminated in pursuance of the settlement that has been entered into.
Narpal (respondent No.2) who is the complainant had stated on 18.11.2010 that he has no objection to the quashing of FIR No.28 dated 15.2.2003 (Annexure P3) registered at Police Station Madhuban, District Karnal for the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC against the petitioners as the matter has been compromised vide compromise recorded on 7.10.2010 (Annexure P2). It was also accepted that the vernacular affidavit dated 7.10.2010 (Annexure P3) is signed by him and bears his photograph.
Learned State counsel has submitted that in case the matrimonial dispute between the parties has been amicably settled, the State would have no serious objection to the quashing of the FIR.
In Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 582 it was observed by the Supreme Court as follows:-
We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where by question involved is of a Crl. Misc. No. M-30136 of 2010 [5] 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 the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law. Besides, a five Judges Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 has observed as follows:-
" 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-30136 of 2010 [6] justice. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the CrPC, or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the CrPC.
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 CrPC is sued 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 CrPC 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-30136 of 2010 [7] of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation".
In B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 it was held that non-exercise of inherent power to quash proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier and that would be against the object of Section 498-A IPC. It was further held that if for securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 CrPC would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. Thus the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 CrPC does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 CrPC. It was observed that it is the duty of the Courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.
The matrimonial dispute, in the present case, has indeed been compromised, therefore, it would be just and expedient to terminate the proceedings by quashing the FIR.
Accordingly, case FIR No.28 dated 15.2.2003 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Madhuban, District Karnal for the offences under Sections 406 and 498- A IPC and all consequential and subsequent proceedings arising in pursuance thereof shall stand quashed in view of the compromise dated 7.10.2010 (Annexure P2) as also further modified during the pendency of the proceedings with the mutual consent of the petitioners and respondents No.2 and 3.
Crl. Misc. No. M-30136 of 2010 [8]
During the proceedings of the case, this Court had asked the learned State counsel to ascertain whether there was any scheme with the State Government by which something could be given to the minor who is almost 100% disabled and has separate parents.
Learned State counsel has submitted notification dated 30.1.2009 issued by the Haryana Government in the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment which provides for a Scheme of financial assistance to non-school going disabled children. In terms of Para 9 of the said Scheme, the minor child is entitled to `300/- per month. The said amount to the extent of `300/- per month is already being received by respondents No.2 and 3. However, it was felt that the same is quite inadequate to maintain the minor disabled child. On 30.11.2010, the learned State counsel had taken time to seek further instructions in this regard.
Learned State counsel has submitted that though some instructions have been sought, however, he may be granted more time to seek instructions in this regard.
In the circumstances, the proceedings regarding quashing of FIR stands disposed of with the FIR being quashed. However, the case is adjourned to 23.3.2011 to enable the learned State counsel to seek necessary instructions from the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment of the Haryana Government regarding financial assistance for disabled children with parents who are separated.
Crl. Misc. No. M-30136 of 2010 [9]
Copy of this order be given to the learned State counsel under the signatures of the Special Secretary of this Bench for necessary compliance.
(S.S. SARON) JUDGE December 23, 2010 amit