Santosh Rani and Others vs State of Punjab and Another

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.—The present petition u/s 482, Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Santosh Rani, Dharminder Kumar, Naresh Kumar Saini and Ruby @ Minakshi, for quashing of FIR No. 306, dated 6.12.2012, under Sections 406 and 498A, IPC, registered at Police Station, Kotwali, Faridkot, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise. Vide order dated 25.10.2013, this Court had directed the affected parties to appear on 8.11.2013 before the learned Trial Court, for getting their respective statements recorded with regard to the compromise. The said Court was also directed to submit a detailed report in that regard along with copies of the statements on or before the date fixed by this Court.

In compliance of the above, four petitioners as well as the complainant-respondent No. 2, Vandana, did appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot, and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the compromise. The copies of the statements and the report were received from the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot. The complainant-respondent No. 2, Vandana, stated as under:

I have effected compromise with accused persons with the help of Panchayat and respectable. Attested copy of written compromise is Ex. CX, which also bears my signature. The compromise has been arrived at by us out of our freewill and without any coercion, threat, pressure, greed or fraud. I have received a draft of Rs. 1,30,000/- having No. 954526 dated 24.10.2013 and another draft of Rs. 10,000/- having No. 828335 dated 06.11.2013 as per the terms of compromise mentioned above. We both the parties agree with the writ petition filed before Hon''ble High Court. The compromise is for welfare of both the parties. We both the parties shall not take any other action and shall withdraw all the applications or cases pending against each other and we will remain bound by the compromise Ex. CX. I shall also withdraw petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. pending in this Hon''ble Court and fixed for 15.11.2013. I do not want to further proceed against accused person. I have no objection if the FIR No. 306 dated 6.12.2012, u/s. 498A/406 IPC, PS City, Faridkot, and the proceedings are quashed against the accused persons.

Similar joint statement was suffered by the petitioners, which reads as under:

in this case we have effected compromise with the complainant Vandana. The written compromise is Ex. CX, which bears our signatures. The compromise between us has taken place with our free will and consent. It is not result-outcome of any threat, pressure, coercion or fraud. We have given a draft of Rs. 1,40,000/- as per compromise and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- at the time of making statement in the petition u/s 13B to be filed jointly. I (Dharminder Kumar) shall withdraw petition u/s 9 of HMA Act pending now in the court of learned Addl. Civil Judge, Faridkot after transfer from Phagwara by Hon''ble High Court. We want to live in peace and harmony. We will remain bound by the compromise Ex. CX. On the basis of this compromise, we have filed petition for quashing before Hon''ble High Court, Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh.

The operative part of the report received from the learned Court below is as under:-

I have personally talked to both the parties i.e. the complainant Vandana and also the accused persons Dharminder Kumar, Naresh Kumar, Santosh Rani and Meenakshi respectively, present in the court alongwith their respective counsels. I am satisfied that the compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence and has been effected between the parties with their freewill and consent. I do not find any element of coercion, pressure etc. in this regard.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present criminal litigation has arisen out of a matrimonial dispute. The petitioners as well as the complainant-respondent No. 2 have sorted out their disputes and effected a compromise. The terms and conditions of the compromise have already been materialized. The complainant-respondent No. 2, Vandana, as well as the accused-petitioner No. 2, Dharminder Kumar, have already filed a petition for grant of divorce in terms of Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which is pending adjudication before the learned District Judge, Faridkot. He further contends that in view of the compromise so effected between the parties and the statements suffered by them before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate, the chances of conviction and sentence of the petitioners are bleak. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the ratio of the judgments delivered by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the matters of B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, and Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others v. Balbir Raghuvanshi and another, 2013 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 427.

Learned counsel for the State on instructions from ASI Sukhdarshan Kumar of Police Station, City, Faridkot, very fairly concedes that both the private factions have sorted out their dispute and effected a compromise. He further concedes that the petitioners as well as the complainant-respondent No. 2 did appear before the learned Court below and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the compromise. He has also gone through the copies of the statements of the private parties and the report received from the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot, and has no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings are quashed, on the basis of the compromise.

Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No. 2 has also toed the lines of the learned counsel for the State and has admitted the factum of the compromise and has no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings are quashed. He also admitted the fact that respondent No. 2 did appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot, and got recorded her statement with regard to the compromise.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.

The present criminal litigation has arisen out of a matrimonial dispute. Due to intervention of the respectable and the elderly people of the society, both the private factions have sorted out their disputes and effected a compromise. The petitioners as well as the complainant-respondent No. 2 were directed to appear before the learned Trial Court for getting their respective statements recorded with regard to the compromise. They did comply with the said order and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the compromise. The copies of the said statements have been received along with a detailed report of the learned Trial Court. The operative part of the same has already been reproduced in the earlier part of this order. Learned counsel for the respondents have also admitted the factum of the compromise and have no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. Most of the conditions of the compromise have been materialized. Even a petition for grant of decree of divorce by mutual consent has been presented before the learned District Judge, Faridkot. The pendency of the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom would be sheer abuse of the process of law since the chances of ultimate conviction and sentence of the petitioners are bleak. As a sequel to the above discussion and taking into consideration the ratio of the judgments in the matters of B.S. Joshi and Jitendra Raghuvanshi (supra), this petition is accepted and FIR No. 306, dated 6.12.2012, under Sections 406 and 498A, IPC, registered at Police Station, Kotwali, Faridkot, and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.