Sweety and Others vs State of Haryana ad Another

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Concisely, the relevant facts, which are essential to be noticed to decide the present petition and emanating from the record are that, the marriage of complainant Ritu, respondent No.2(for brevity "the complainant") was solemnized with Vikas (petitioner No.4), according to the Hindu Rites and Ceremonies on 29.03.2008 at Dhigwan Jatan, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani. Her parents were stated to have given sufficient dowry articles beyond their capacity by spending Rs.4-5 lacs. But her husband and his other relatives were not satisfied. They demanded a car and Rs.1 lac in cash. Although, her father gave Rs.50,000/-to settle the complainant in her matrimonial home, but the petitioners-accused were not satisfied. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the complainant claimed that the petitioners-accused have treated her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant-Ritu, a criminal case was registered against the petitioners-accused, by virtue of FIR No.109 dated 16.09.2009, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 506, 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station Loharu, District Bhiwani.

After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the challan/final police report in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners-accused to prosecute them for the indicated offences in the trial Court.

During the pendency of the criminal case, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their disputes, by means of compromise (Annexure P-6).

Having settled the matter, now the petitioners have preferred the present petition, to quash the FIR on the basis of compromise, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter alia, pleading that, they have amicably settled their disputes, at the intervention of respectable. They have decided to dissolve their marriage by filing a petition u/s 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The complainant has no objection if the FIR registered against the petitioners-accused is quashed. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioners-accused sought to quash the FIR and all other subsequent proceedings arising there from, in the manner depicted hereinabove.

During the course of preliminary hearing, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.) passed the following order on March 28, 2012:

Quashing of FIR is sought on the basis of alleged compromise reached between the parties(Annexure P-6).

Let the parties appear before the trial Court on 3.4.2012 and get their statements recorded in support of the compromise, as alleged.

The trial Court is directed to send a report with regard to the fact as to whether the statements have been made by the parties voluntarily and without any pressure, before the next date of hearing.

List on 22.4.2012.

At this stage, Mr. Ashwani Kumar Bura, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2.

Counsel for the petitioners has handed over a demand draft for a sum of Rs.3,25,000/-, as per their compromise, which has been accepted by the counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2. However, the acceptance of the aforesaid amount is subject to further orders of this Court.

In pursuance thereof, the trial Court has sent its report bearing No.705 dated 09.05.2012, which in substance is as under:

I have the honour to most respectfully submit that in compliance of the orders of the Hon''ble High Court, in the above mentioned case, my learned predecessor recorded the statement of complainant Ritu on 3.4.2012. It is submitted that I recorded the joint statement of all the four accused namely, Vikash, Kesar Devi, Rajender and Sweety in open Court on 7.5.2012. They have given their consent to compromise the matter with each other and complainant gave her further consent that the criminal case against the accused be withdrawn. She also gave her consent of accepting Rs.3,25,000/-by way of demand draft, in lieu of the said compromise from the accused. Before recording their statements they were well explained by the Court of the legal consequences of their said statements and also appreciated that they are giving their statements voluntarily, without any undue pressure and inducement. The photostat copies of the statements of complainant, Ritu as well as joint statement of all the four accused, are attached herewith, original of which, have been placed on the record file itself.

Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial disputes, by means of compromise(Annexure P-6) and report of the trial Court.

Such, thus, being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in these petitions is, as to whether the present criminal prosecution against the petitioners deserves to be quashed in view of the compromise or not?

Having regard to the contentions of the Learned Counsel for the parties, to my mind, it would be in the interest and justice would be sub-served, if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter. Moreover, Learned Counsel for the parties are ad idem that, in view of the settlement of matrimonial dispute between the parties, the present petitions deserve to be accepted in this context.

The law with regard to quashing such criminal prosecution on the basis of settlement between the parties by virtue of compromise, has now been well-settled by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in cases Shiji @ Pappu and others Versus Radhika and another, 2012(1) RCR(Criminal) 9, Manoj Sharma v. State & Ors. 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 827; B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana 2003 (2) RCR (Crl.) 888 (SC) and Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, wherein it was ruled that the High Court has vast inherent power to quash the criminal prosecution on the basis of settlement of disputes between the parties.

The crux of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is that the power u/s 482 Cr.PC has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and everlasting congeniality in society and resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same, unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery if the statement is fair being free from under pressure.

Meaning thereby, the High Court has unlimited power to quash the criminal proceedings, relatable to such matrimonial disputes, on the basis of lawful settlement within the framework and restriction described by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. The ratio of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments "mutatis mutandis" is fully attracted to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.

As is evident from the record that, in the instant case, the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial disputes and the complainant has already received the agreed amount, in pursuance of the compromise(Annexure P-6). Both the parties will withdraw all civil and criminal cases registered against each other. They have further agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent, by filing a divorce petition. The complainant has no objection if the said FIR registered against the petitioners is quashed. The version in regard to the compromise between the parties is also reiterated by the trial Court in its indicated report. Thus, it would be seen that since, compromise is in their welfare and interest, so, there is no impediment in translating the wishes of the parties into reality and to quash the criminal prosecution to set the matter at rest, to enable them to live in peace and to enjoy the life and liberty in a dignified manner. Therefore, to me, the impugned FIR and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, deserve to be quashed in this relevant connection. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR No.109 dated 16.09.2009 and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. The petitioners-accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.