Vishwas Pasricha and Another vs State of Haryana and Another

Ritu Bahri, J.—The present petition has been filed u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 51 dated 24.07.2010 under Sections 313/323/498-A/406/506/120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station, Sector 19, Panchkula and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2)

Brief facts of the case are that Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2/complainant got married on 22.11.2008. After marriage, the relations between the Petitioner and his wife got worst and they got separated with each other due to temperamental differences. In the above background, F.I.R was registered against the accused.

However, during the pendency of the trial, the parties have compromised the matter with the intervention of respectables and family members and both the sides had patched up the entire issued and had arrived at an understanding which has been duly entered into written compromise. The compromise dated 10.09.210 relates to amicable settlement of both the sides. It has been agreed upon by the complainant that she will not pursue the above said FIR against the Petitioners and will join back the matrimonial home in Jalandhar. Both the parties further witnessed the fact that they would withdraw all the court cases and complaints. Both the parties arrived at a compromise with their mutual understanding after reading the terms and conditions of the compromise. Compromise deed is Annexure P-2.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Jagdip Chander has informed the Court that they have no information regarding the compromise. However ASI Jagdish Chander has identified both the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2, who are present in Court.

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 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 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 Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008 (2) RCR (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 the 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 are, cannot afford.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. 2008(2) RCR (Cri) 910 has examined a case where quashing was sought 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 bedridden.

Consequently, in view of the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (supra) and Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. 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) and in view of the statements made by the parties, this Court has no hesitation to quash the present FIR No. 51 dated 24.07.2010 under Sections 313/323/498-A/406/506/120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station, Sector 19, Panchkula is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua Petitioners.

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.