Punjab-Haryana High Court
Yogesh Kumar Dutta And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 8 March, 2011
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Criminal Misc. No. M- 1109 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M- 1109 of 2011
Date of decision:- 08.03.2011
Yogesh Kumar Dutta and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present:- Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. P.S. Virk, DAG Haryana
for respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
RITU BAHRI J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.106 dated 16.6.2005, under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 31, Faridabad on the basis of compromise.
As per allegations in the FIR marriage between complainant and petitioner No.1 was solemnized on 08.12.2001 as per Hindu Rites and ceremonies at Sector 29, Faridabad. Sufficient dowry articles were given in the marriage on the side of complainant's family but petitioners were not satisfied and started illtreating the complainant by demanding more dowry. On 21.7.2002 a panchayat was convened at Faridabad and thereafter petitioners took the complainant to Delhi. In November 2002, a girl child was born and her mother gave Rs.21,000/- cash and other articles to the petitioners. But her Criminal Misc. No. M- 1109 of 2011 -2- husband and his other family members did not stop maltreating her. The complaint was made to the police on 09.1.2004 as petitioners had a bad eye on the house owned by mother of complainant. Thereafter, the matter was compromised on a condition that mother of complainant will pay Rs.6,000/- per month. In this background, the FIR was registered.
A decree of mutual divorce has been granted to the parties. It has been settled between the parties that petitioners would pay Rs.5,00,000/- to respondent No.2 towards permanent alimony, share of property, maintenance, Istridhan and for welfare of the minor daughter. Counsel for the petitioners states that divorce has been granted on 22.11.2010.
In compliance of order dated 14.1.2011, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad has sent a report verifying the contents of the compromise. As per this report, on 12.2.2011 parties were appeared before the trial Court and were inquired about the compromise arrived at between them. Their joint statement regarding the compromise was recorded. As per statement, compromise has been effected between the parties and marriage of petitioner No.1 and complainant has already been dissolved and complainant does not want to proceed with the FIR in question and has no objection if the same is quashed. After recording the statements of the parties, the compromise is held to be genuine.
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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 1109 of 2011 -3- 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.
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 ratio of the Full Bench judgment is a special reference which Criminal Misc. No. M- 1109 of 2011 -4- has been made to the offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide where the victim dies in the course of transaction would fall in the category where compounding may not be permitted. Heinous offences like highway robbery, dacoity or a case involving clear-cut allegations of rape should also fall in the prohibited category. However, the offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide may be permitted to be compounded when the Court is in the position to record a finding that the settlement between the parties is voluntary and fair. The Court must examine the cases of weaker and vulnerable victims with necessary caution.
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 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."
Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (supra) and 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), FIR No.106 dated 16.6.2005, under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 31, Faridabad, is quashed with all consequential proceedings Criminal Misc. No. M- 1109 of 2011 -5- arising therefrom qua petitioners.
The petition stands disposed of.
March 08, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE