Vinod Kumar And Others vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Anothers

Through the medium of instant petition filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.45/2018 dated 05.02.2018 registered at Police Station Kathua under Section 498-A RPC against them, on the ground of compromise arrived at between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2.

It is pertinent to mention here that on 01.03.2019 this Court while allowing IA No.02/2019 and taking the compromise deed on record, parties alongwith their counsel were directed to appear before Registrar Judicial of this Court for recording their statements with regard to authenticity of compromise deed.

Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, Registrar Judicial has recorded the statements of petitioner Nos.1 to 3, 5 & 6 and respondent No.2, who have been identified by Ms Deepali Arora, Advocate and Mr. Ravinder Kumar Choudhary, Senior Assistant in Judicial Department. However, statement of petitioner No.4 could not be recorded because he is serving in Navy and could not come as stated by other petitioners. The said statements are placed on record, which read under:-

"Statement of Vinod Kumar (petitioner no.1), Age : 35 years; S/o Sh. Sham Lal, R/o Vijaypur, Tehsil and District Samba on oath today i.e.01.03.2019 Stated that I have entered into a compromise deed executed on 01.03.2019 with respondent no.2 namely Sonika Vaid and we have amicably settled all disputes and issues in terms of afore mentioned deed. In view of the afore said compromise deed, I pray the Hon'ble Court to quash the FIR bearing no.45/2018 dated 05.02.2018 registered at Police Station, Kathua under section 498-A RPC.

Statement of Sonika Vaid (respondent no.2), Age: 34 years; W/o Sh. Vinod Kumar, D/o Sh.Om Parkash R/o H.No.144, Ward No.5, Railway Road, Vijaypur, Tehsil and District Samba on oath today i.e.01.03.2019 Stated that I have entered into a compromise deed executed on 01.03.2019 with petitioner no.1 namely Vinod Kumar and we have amicably settled all disputes and issues in terms of afore mentioned deed. Further, I do not want to press the allegations put forth against all the petitioners in view of the dispute resolved between the parties. I am presently residing with petitioner no.1 and other petitioners at my matrimonial home happily from last six months. I have no objection in case the Hon'ble Court quashes the FIR bearing no.45/2018 dated 05.02.2018 registered at Police Station, Kathua under section 498-A RPC.

Statement of Ajay Kumar (petitioner no.2), Age: 30 years; S/o Sh. Sham Lal, R/o Vijaypur, Tehsil and District Samba on oath today i.e.07.03.2019 Stated that my brother (petitioner no.1) namely Vinod Kumar has amicably settled all disputes and issues with respondent no.2 namely Sonika Vaid in terms of the compromise deed executed on 01.03.2019. Now, respondent no.2 is happily residing in our family. In view of the afore said compromise deed, I pray the Hon'ble Court to quash the FIR bearing no.45/2018 dated 05.02.2018 registered at Police Station, Kathua under section 498-A RPC.

Statement of Manish Kumar (petitioner no.3), Age: 28 years; S/o Sh. Sham Lal, R/o Vijaypur, Tehsil and District Samba on oath today i.e.07.03.2019 Stated that my brother (petitioner no.1) namely Vinod Kumar has amicably settled all disputes and issues with respondent no.2 namely Sonika Vaid in terms of the compromise deed executed on 01.03.2019. Now, respondent no.2 is happily residing in our family. In view of the afore said compromise deed, I pray the Hon'ble Court to quash the FIR bearing no.45/2018 dated 05.02.2018 registered at Police Station, Kathua under section 498-A RPC.

Statement of Sham Lal (petitioner no.5), Age: 65 years; S/o Sh. Baisakhi Ram, R/o Vijaypur, Tehsil and District Samba on oath today i.e.07.03.2019 Stated that my son (petitioner no.1) namely Vinod Kumar has amicably settled all disputes and issues with respondent no.2 namely Sonika Vaid in terms of the compromise deed executed on 01.03.2019. Now, respondent no.2 is happily residing in our family as daughter-in-law. In view of the afore said compromise deed, I pray the Hon'ble Court to quash the FIR bearing no.45/2018 dated 05.02.2018 registered at Police Station, Kathua under section 498-A RPC.

Statement of Swarna Rani (petitioner no.6), Age: 55 years; W/o Sh. Sham Lal, R/o Vijaypur, Tehsil and District Samba on oath today i.e.07.03.2019 Stated that my Son (petitioner no.1) namely Vinod Kumar has amicably settled all disputes and issues with respondent no.2 namely Sonika Vaid in terms of the compromise deed executed on 01.03.2019. Now, respondent no.2 is happily residing in our family as Daughter- in- Law. In view of the afore said compromise deed, I pray the Hon'ble Court to quash the FIR bearing no.45/2018 dated 05.02.2018 registered at Police Station, Kathua under section 498-A RPC.

Statement of Ms. Deepali Arora, Advocate for petitioners on oath today i.e. 07.03.2019 Stated that I do hereby identify the petitioners who have deposed their statements before Registrar Judicial in my presence which is true and correct to my knowledge."

From bare perusal of the statements placed on record, it is evident that parties have entered into a compromise whereby they have settled their differences.

Relevant extract of the compromise deed is reproduced as under:-

"The the party of the 1st part/wife by virtue of this compromise deed has agreed to resolve all the disputes with the party of the 2nd part and his family members amicably.

That the party of the 1st part undertakes that she along with minor child will reside with the party of the 2nd part and his other family members peacefully and happily and she will perform each and every obligation/ duty towards her husband and in laws.

That the party of the 1st part will further undertakes that she will not lodge/ file any kind of claim/ case against the party of the 2nd part or any of his family members.

That the party of the 2nd part also undertakes that he will maintain the party of the 1st part with best of his abilities and always treat her with love, affection and respect.

That both the parties undertakes that they will reside peacefully and happily with each other as husband and wife at above mentioned address and will not file any kind of claim against each other.

That both the parties to this deed have reconciled the matter amicably.

That as already submitted that the parties are residing peacefully and happily under one roof as husband and wife since 10.09.2018.

That on the basis of the instant compromise the party of the 1st part does not want to press any kind of FIR/case filed/pending against the party of the 2nd part or any of his relation before any police station or court.

That the terms and condition of the instant deed shall be binding upon both the parties."

In case titled B. S. Joshi & others Vs. State of Haryana & another reported in 2003 (0) SCC (Cri.) 848, the Apex Court has held as under:-

"The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. [(2000) 3 SCC 693] are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial dispute by the courts, it was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their "cases" in different courts.

There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code.

In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.

For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment and allow the appeal and quash the FIR above mentioned."

Having carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the present case, and also the law relating to the continuance of criminal cases where the complainant and the accused had settled their differences and had arrived at an amicable arrangement, I am of considered opinion that future trial is mere wastage of time of courts. As the parties have compromised, there would be no chance of conviction of any accused in the case. Offences for which criminal prosecution has been launched are not heinous one.

Consequently, this petition is allowed and FIR No.45/2018 dated 05.02.2018 registered at Police Station Kathua under Section 498-A RPC, filed by the respondent No.2 against petitioners, is quashed in view of compromise arrived at between the parties.