Quashing of an FIR registered for matrimonial offences based on a compoundable dispute where the prosecution agreed to the settlement and accepted the payment, invoking inherent powers to prevent abuse of legal process.
FIR No.196 dated 8.5.2010 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM M-34807 of 2011 Date of Decision:3.2.2011
Abdul Rehman and others
.... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
.... Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present: Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Rattu, D.A.G. Haryana.
Mr. Salim Ahmed, Advocate for respondent No.2.
1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.196 dated 8.5.2010 under Sections 498A/406/323/506 IPC Police Station Old Faridabad and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.
The FIR in question was got registered by respondent No.2. However, the matter has been compromised due to the intervention of the respectables of the area. Compromise deed (Annexure P-2) has already been placed on record to this effect.
The parties are present in the Court along with their respective counsel. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 has placed on record the affidavit of respondent No.2 admitting the factum of compromise. As per the said affidavit, respondent No.2 has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.
-2-
CRM M-34807 of 2011
Respondent No.2, who is present in the Court, also got her statement recorded to the effect that the matter has been compromised. In pursuance to the compromise, the petitioners are required to pay Rs.5,75,000/- towards full and final settlement. She has already received an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. Today, she has received a demand draft bearing No.180357 issued by the Punjab National Bank amounting to Rs.2,75,000/in the Court today. Accordingly, she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.
The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that 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 under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 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 not only in matrimonial discord but others as well, such compromise deserves to be accepted. It is further held as under:-
“ The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in noncompoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.”
In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008
(4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under:-
-3-
CRM M-34807 of 2011
“ We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.”
Taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties, the affidavit of respondent No.2 and the statement of respondent No.2 made before this Court today stating that she has no objection if the FIR is quashed, it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR in the interest of justice.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.196 dated 8.5.2010 under Sections 498-A/406/323/506 IPC Police Station Old Faridabad and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
3.2.2012 rajeev
( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allow quashing of a non-compoundable offence upon entering a compromise agreement.
Whether the compromise deed and statements admiting the settlement justify quashing the FIR and subsequent proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anotherRelied on¶22
2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of PunjabRelied on¶24
2008 (4) S.C. Cases 582
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Abdul Rehman
State of Haryana
Nirmaljit Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
