Present: Ms. Kiran Bala JaIn Advocate Vs. State of Haryana and Another - Court Judgment

CRM-M No.19645 of 2014 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh CRM-M No.19645 of 2014 Date of decision:

11. 8.2014 Sandeep Kumar alias Sanjay Chaudhary and others. ..Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahavir S. Chauhan Present: Ms. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Suvir Sidhu, DAG,Haryana for respondent No.1-State Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No.2 ****** Mahavir S.Chauhan, J.(Oral) By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for brevity, the Code), petitioners, the accused, in First Information Report (for short, FIR) No.67 dated 1.5.2009 under Sections 406/498A/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short, the IPC), recorded at Police Station, Sadar, Ambala, (Annexure P1), seek quashing of the above said FIR saying that the matter has been amicably settled between them and the complainant/respondent No.2, in view of the terms and conditions of settlement recorded in mediation proceedings dated 19.5.2014 ( Annexure P2) before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Kant Nirmal 2014.08.19 15:33 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh CRM-M No.19645 of 2014 2 Court and the statement made by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 had got lodged the aforesaid FIR against the petitioners on the allegation of demand of dowry and for giving her beatings by the petitioners, who are husband and in-laws of complainant-respondent No.2. As per terms and conditions of settlement, the complainant received ` 35,000/- in cash, demand draft of ` 4.00 lacs was to be paid to her at the time of withdrawal of matrimonial appeal (i.e., FAO) and ` 2.5 lacs has to be paid at the time of quashing of FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioners has produced a copy of the order dated 28.7.2014 passed in FIR No.504 of 2014, wherein, it has been recorded that demand draft of Rs. 4.00 Lacs in favour of complainant has been handed over by counsel for the petitioners to counsel for the complainant. Accordingly, ` 2.5 lacs remained to be paid. Today, respondent No.2 has received a demand draft No.599121 for `2,50,000/- from petitioner No.1 in terms of compromise and has made a statement to the effect that she has no objection, if the FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioners are quashed. Learned State counsel has also no objection to the acceptance of this petition. The matter pertains to matrimonial dispute and the complainant-wife has now settled it with the petitioner. In B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and Anr., (2003) 4 SCC675 the husband was one of the appellants while the wife was Kant Nirmal 2014.08.19 15:33 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh CRM-M No.19645 of 2014 3 Respondent No.2 in the appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. They were living separately for quite some time. An FIR was registered under Sections 498-A/323 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code at the instance of the wife. When the criminal case registered at the instance of the wife was pending, the dispute between the husband and wife and their family members was settled. Wife filed an affidavit that her disputes with the husband and the other members of his family had been finally settled and she and her husband had agreed for mutual divorce. Based on the said affidavit, the matter was taken to the High Court by both the parties and they jointly prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings launched against the husband and his family members on the basis of the FIR registered at the wife's instance under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. The High Court dismissed the petition for quashing the FIR as, in its view, the offences under Sections 498-A and 406, Indian Penal Code were non-compoundable and the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code could not be invoked to by-pass Section 320 of the Code. It is from this order that the matter reached the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the apex Court held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers could quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code and held as under:

“14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498- A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her Kant Nirmal 2014.08.19 15:33 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh CRM-M No.19645 of 2014 4 husband. Section 498-A 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 hypertechnical view would be counterproductive 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 XX-A of the Indian Penal Code.

15. 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.”

. Impressing upon the courts to promote settlements in matrimonial cases, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Ors. Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and Anr., 2013 IV AD (S.C.) 59:

2013. 4) ADJ40 2013(2) ALD(Cri) 148:

2013. 3) BomCR(Cri) 438:

116. 2013) CLT572 2013(2) Crimes 90(SC): (2013)3 GLR1875 ILR20132) Kerala 89:

2013. 2) J.L.J.R. 225:

2013. 2) JCC1365 2013(2) JLJ128 JT2013(4) SC98 2013(2) KLT47 2013-4-LW146 2013-2-LW(Crl) 284:

2013. 2) MLJ(Crl) 736:

2013. II) OLR97 2013(2) PLJR312 2013(2) RCR(Criminal) 427:

2013. 2) RLW1416 2013(3) SCALE537 (2013)4 SCC58 2013(2) UC960(decided On:

15. 03.2013), ruled as under:

“11. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are wide and unfettered. In B.S. Joshi (supra), this Court has upheld the powers of the High Court under Section 482 to Kant Nirmal 2014.08.19 15:33 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh CRM-M No.19645 of 2014 5 quash criminal proceedings where dispute is of a private nature and a compromise is entered into between the parties who are willing to settle their differences amicably. We are satisfied that the said decision is directly applicable to the case on hand and the High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings by accepting the settlement arrived at.

12. In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings.

13. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The institution of marriage occupies an important place and it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction. It is trite to state that the Kant Nirmal 2014.08.19 15:33 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh CRM-M No.19645 of 2014 6 power Under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. We also make it clear that exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it has to be exercised in appropriate cases in order to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. It is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and Section 482 of the Code enables the High Court and Article 142 of the Constitution enables this Court to pass such orders.

14. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in appropriate cases in order to meet the ends of justice and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court Under Section 482 of the Code. Under these circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 04.07.2012 passed in M.C.R.C. No.2877 of 2012 and quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No.4166 of 2011 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate Class-I, Indore.”

. From the above it is established that the parties to the lis have resolved the inter se dispute amicably and to live in peace and Kant Nirmal 2014.08.19 15:33 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh CRM-M No.19645 of 2014 7 harmony. Reference may be made to a Five-Judges Bench decision of this Court in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052:2007(3) PLR4392007(2) ILR (Punjab) 338:2007(3) AICLR8182007(4) CCR2802007(59) AIC4352007(4) CTC769 2007(4) KLT245 wherein it has been held as under:

“27. 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) of the Criminal Procedure Code, or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

28. 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 Criminal Procedure Code 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 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 Criminal Procedure Code 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.

29. The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Criminal Procedure Code which can affect the Kant Nirmal 2014.08.19 15:33 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh CRM-M No.19645 of 2014 8 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 non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.

30. The power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para-meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restraint. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.”

. It may also be of benefit to extract from Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (SC)2012(4) Recent Apex Judgments (RAJ) 549:2012(4) RCR(Crl.) 543:2012(5) CTC5262012 Ker.LJ1412012 (4) KLT1082012(4) Law Herald (SC) 3025:2012(5) Knt.LJ476 2012(4) Cri.CC7742012 (10) SCC3032012 AIR (SC)(Cri) 1796:

2012. CriLJ49342012(4) AICLR5512012(4) Crimes (SC) 155:2012(9) SCALE2572012(2) WLC (SC) Criminal 753, following Kant Nirmal 2014.08.19 15:33 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh CRM-M No.19645 of 2014 9 observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India:

“57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Kant Nirmal 2014.08.19 15:33 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh CRM-M No.19645 of 2014 10 Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”

. It is anybody’s guess that the parties having entered a compromise, possibility of the trial resulting into conviction of the accused is remote and bleak and that being so continuation of criminal proceedings would visit the accused with great oppression, prejudice and extreme injustice. Rather it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice, or say abuse of the process of the Court, if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue. Ends of justice would be met only if the criminal proceedings are put to an end because this would allow the parties to translate their desire to live in peace into reality. The only consideration for the compromise reached between the parties seems to be their desire to bury the hatchet for all times to come. The compromise is also found to be in the interest of public at large, for, it will add to the peace of the society and will promote peaceful co-existence. The Courts are Kant Nirmal 2014.08.19 15:33 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh CRM-M No.19645 of 2014 11 bound to play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of the Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery In the consequence, I accept the petition, quash the FIR in question as also the proceedings arising therefrom and discharge the petitioners/accused, from the proceedings. August 11,2014 (MAHAVIR S.CHAUHAN) nk JUDGE Kant Nirmal 2014.08.19 15:33 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh