Single judge order quashed two FIRs registered against petitioners and State, based on compromise in matrimonial dispute, relying on precedent regarding Section 482 Cr.P.C. and personal nature of the dispute.
FIR No.74 dated 28.1.2009 and FIR No.832 dated 25.10.2008 and all consequential proceedings qua petitioners quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Criminal Misc. No. M-2824 of 2011
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
1. Criminal Misc. No. M-2824 of 2011 Date of decision:- 26.4.2011
Sandeep Kumar and others
...Petitioners Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
Sandeep Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present:Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Parminder Singh-I, Advocate for respondent No.2.
RITU BAHRI J.(Oral)
This order shall dispose of the aforesaid two petitions as the same
have arisen from the same incident.
Criminal Misc. No. M-2824 of 2011
-2-
The present petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.74 dated 28.1.2009 under Sections 498-A, 406 and 109 IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda (Annexure P-1) (in CRM No.M2824 of 2011) and FIR No.832 dated 25.10.2008, under Sections 452,294 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda (in CRM No. M-2825 of 2011) on the basis of compromise.
For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from Criminal Misc. No. M-2824 of 2011.
The petitioners are being husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of respondent No.2-complainant and the FIR was registered against them due to the litigation pending between the parties, which resulted out of matrimonial dispute. The marriage between respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 was solemnized on 6.3.2006 at Jagraon, District Ludhiana according to Hindu rites. After the marriage, the parties was living together and a son namely Vansh Goyal was born out from the said wedlock on 8.11.2006. Due to some misunderstanding the parties could not live together. In this background the FIR was registered.
When the FIR was at the stage of investigation, the parties have entered into compromise and have decided to live with peace. Vide order dated 4.8.2009 a decree of divorce by mutual consent has been passed under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act (Annexure P-4).
The parties have recorded their statements on 28.7.2009 in which it has been stated that Meghna Goyal has received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from Sandeep Kumar towards permanent alimony on her behalf as well as on behalf of minor son Vansh through cheque bearing No.002516 dated 27.4.2009.
In compliance of order dated 28.1.2011, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda has sent a report verifying the contents of the compromise.
Criminal Misc. No. M-2824 of 2011
-3-
As per this report, on 21.3.2011 complainant Megha Goyal and petitioner No.1Sandeep Kumar appeared before the Court and recorded their statements to the effect that they have compromised the matter amicably and now they have no grudge with each other. The complainant has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed qua petitioners. After recording the statements of the parties, the compromise is held to be genuine and without any pressure or coercion.
Broad guidelines have been laid down by the Full Bench of this
Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 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:-
“26. In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, (1980)1 SCC
63, 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.”
Criminal Misc. No. M-2824 of 2011
-4-
sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 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 under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 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 which 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 vs. State of Punjab 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429 has examined a case where quashing was sought of an FIR under Section 406 IPC being noncompoundable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-
Criminal Misc. No. M-2824 of 2011
-5-
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul
etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another 2008(2) RCR (Criminal)
910 has examined a case where quashing was sought of an FIR under Section 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.” Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (supra) and
Criminal Misc. No. M-2824 of 2011
-6-
the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (supra) and Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another (supra), FIR No.74 dated 28.1.2009 under Sections 498-A, 406 and 109 IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda (Annexure P-1) (in CRM No.M-2824 of 2011) and FIR No.832 dated 25.10.2008, under Sections 452,294 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda (in CRM No. M- 2825 of 2011), are quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners.
Both the petitions stand disposed of.
April 26, 2011 Vijay Asija
( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether FIRs under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC and 452, 294, 506 IPC can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. due to genuine compromise in matrimonial disputes.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052Relied on¶32
Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, (1980)1 SCC 63Referred¶33
Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429Relied on¶41
Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 910Relied on¶48
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sandeep Kumar and others
State of Punjab
Ritu Bahri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
