Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lalit Alias Shanti And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 19 May, 2011
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Crl. Misc. No.M-9306 of 2011
--1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA,
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.M-9306 of 2011
Date of decision. 19.05.2011
Lalit alias Shanti and another ....... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another ........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Sh. P.S. Virk, DAG, Haryana
for respondent No. 1-State.
Mr.Baljinder Singh, Advocate
for respondent no.2.
****
RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral)
The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 543 dated 28.08.2009 , under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station City Kaithal District Kaithal (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise .
Crl. Misc. No.M-9306 of 2011
--2--
The instant FIR has been got registered at the instance of complaint moved by the complainant under Section 406, 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioners, on the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The allegations against the accused-petitioners in brief are that Jass, complainant got married with petitioner no.1 namely Lalit alias Shanti on 18.01.2008 according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Kaithal. At the time of marriage, sufficient dowry articles were given to the petitioners. Out of this wedlock, no child was born. Thereafter, the complainant was harassed and mal-treated by the accused-petitioners on account of non- fulfillment of demand of dowry. Ultimately, the complainant was turned out of the matrimonial home by the accused-persons.
Vide order dated 13.12.2010, passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 32767 of 2010, both the parties were directed to appear before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre, so that the matter could be amicably settled. On 17.12.2010 both the parties entered into compromise before the Mediation Centre. It was also agreed in the compromise that petitioner no.1 and the complainant (now respondent no.2) will file a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.
On 14.02.2011 a joint statement of Lalit alias Shunti and Smt. Jass Sharma has been recorded by the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kaithal, wherein it has been stated that a compromise has been effected between them and Rs.4,50,000/- has been received by Smt. Jass from Lalit alias Shunti towards full and final payment and she will not claim any Crl. Misc. No.M-9306 of 2011
--3--
maintenance from him.
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 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.
Crl. Misc. No.M-9306 of 2011
--4--
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 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 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 question involved is of purely personal nature and no public policy is Crl. Misc. No.M-9306 of 2011
--5--
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 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another (supra), 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), as well as in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties in Criminal Misc. No. 32767 of 2010, titled as Lalit alias Shanti Crl. Misc. No.M-9306 of 2011
--6--
v. Jass, decided on even date, FIR No. 543 dated 28.08.2009 , under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station City Kaithal District Kaithal (Annexure P-1), is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners.
The petition stands disposed of.
(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 19, 2011 dinesh