Simran Singh vs State of Punjab and Another

Ritu Bahri, J.—This petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 100 dated 14.4.2006 u/s 406, 498-A IPC registered at police station Sadar Amritsar and all consequential proceedings arising there from on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).

As per the contents of the FIR, marriage between the petitoiner and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 20.12.2000 in accordance with Sikh rites and ceremonies. Due to some misunderstanding the parties could not stay together and there was dispute in the relationship which resulted into registration of this FIR on 14.4.2006.

However, during the pendency of the trial a compromise was effected on 19.8.2010. Wherein, they have agreed to bring an end to all the litigations pending between the parties. They have mutually settled all the disputes with each other. Original compromise is taken on record as Annexure A-1.

Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit of Respondent No. 2, which is taken on record. Respondent No. 2 is also present in Court, who has been duly identified by her Counsel. As per the affidavit the matter has been amicably settled all the disputes and they have started residing together.

Broad guidelines have been laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. 2007 (3) RCR(cri.) 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:

In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney Vs. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and Others, , 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.

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 Code of Criminal Procedure or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

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 u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is used 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 u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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 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 v. State of Punjab 2008 (2) R.C.R. (Cri) 429. has examined a case where quashing was sought of an FIR u/s 406 IPC being non-compoundable. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that:

No useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise - There was no possibility of conviction.

It is advisable that in disputes where question involved is of purely personal nature and no public policy is involved - Court should ordinarily accept the compromise.

Keeping the matter alive with no possibility of conviction is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they a re, cannot afford.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. state of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. 2008 (2) R.C.R (cri) 910. has examined a case where quashing was sough of an FIR u/s 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.

Keeping in view the status report, this Court has no hesitation to quash the FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising there from.

Consequently, in view of the affidavit of Respondent No. 2 and the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (supra), Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. (supra) and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. (supra), FIR No. 100 dated 14.4.2006 u/s 406, 498-A IPC registered at police station Sadar Amritsar and all subsequent proceedings arising there from is quashed on the basis of compromise.

The petition stands disposed of.