Petitioners filed a quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging an FIR registered for matrimonial offences. The Court found a genuine compromise and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings.
FIR No. 82 dated 20.4.2008 under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC and all consequential proceedings are 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-19631 of 2014
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-19631 of 2014 Date of Decision:-15.09.2014
Shibo and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present:Mr. D.R. Punia, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. D.S. Virk, AAG Punjab.
RITU BAHRI J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.82 dated 20.4.2008, registered under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, at Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).
The FIR was registered on account of matrimonial dispute between complainant Reena Rani and her husband Tarlok Chand @ Bitta. The marriage was solemnized on 16.4.2006 as per Hindu rites. Thereafter, her husband left for Dubai in the year 2006 and responsibility of maintenance was given to her Jeth and Jethani. The FIR was registered with the allegation of harassment by family members of her husband. The dispute has now been resolved amicably vide compromise
VIJAY ASIJA 2014.09.18 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Criminal Misc. No. M-19631 of 2014
-2-
Annexure P-2.
In compliance of order dated 30.6.2014, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phillaur has sent a report verifying the contents of the compromise. As per this report, on 30.7.2014 complainant Reena Rani appeared before the trial Court and recorded her statement to the effect that she has entered into compromise with accused persons Tarlok Chand and Seebo. She does not want to proceed with the FIR in question and has no objection if the same is quashed qua petitioners. Joint statement of accused Tarlok Chand and Seebo was also recorded on 30.7.2014 to the effect that they have entered into compromise with complainant Reena Rani. After recording the statements of the parties, the compromise is held to be genuine.
Learned counsel for the State informs the Court that the compromise has been effected between the parties.
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
VIJAY ASIJA 2014.09.18 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Criminal Misc. No. M-19631 of 2014
-3-
hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.”
VIJAY ASIJA 2014.09.18 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Criminal Misc. No. M-19631 of 2014
-4-
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 non-compoundable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-
VIJAY ASIJA 2014.09.18 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Criminal Misc. No. M-19631 of 2014
-5-
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 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), FIR No.82 dated 20.4.2008, registered under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, at Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners.
The petition stands disposed of.
September 15, 2014 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE
VIJAY ASIJA 2014.09.18 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash an FIR under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC based on a genuine compromise in a matrimonial dispute.
Whether the limited scope of Section 320 Cr.P.C. applies to the plenary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in cases of compromise.
Whether continuing proceedings serves any useful purpose when a settlement has been reached in a dispute of purely personal nature.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and anotherRelied on¶22
Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052
Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and othersExplained¶23
Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, (1980)1 SCC 63 · Who else cites this
Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of PunjabRelied on¶35
Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shibo
another
State of Punjab
another
Ritu Bahri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
