file multitude of criminal cases, get two lakhs, file mutual consent and quash all criminal cacses. HC will quash cases easily . NO punishment for filing criminal cases and using the government machinery. happens day and day out. happens court after court. all this is supposed to be in the "interests of justice" ... really ?? allowing false cases or frivolous cases to go un punished or allowing people to file case , then withdraw at will is in the interests of justice??

Kanwalpreet Kaur And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 4 January, 2012

Crl. Misc No. M-39262 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc No. M-39262 of 2011 (O&M)

Date of decision: - 04.01.2012

Kanwalpreet Kaur and others .....Petitioners 

vs

State of Punjab and another ......Respondents 

CORAM: - HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

Present: Mr. G.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Gagan Mohini, AAG, Punjab

Mr. M.P.S Mann, Advocate for respondent No. 2

---

RITU BAHRI, J (ORAL)

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 81 dated 25.09.2009 under Sections 323/324/451/506/427/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the Code'), registered at Police Station Division No. 3, Ludhiana City (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). 

Brief facts of the case are that petitioner No. 1 and respondent NO. 2 got married on 19.11.2006 at Moga as per Sikh Rites and ceremonies. Out of the wedlock, a female child namely Gurnoor was born on 25.09.2007. Thereafter, the relationship between petitioner No. 1 and respondent NO. 2 got strained and respondent No. 2 left the matrimonial home and started living with her parents on her own sweet will. 

Thereafter, the above said F.I.R was registered by respondent No. 2 against the petitioners. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has put in appearance and has submitted that due to intervention of respectable and relatives, the matter has been compromised with the petitioners, vide Annexure P-2. 

As per compromise, both the parties have settled their terms and conditions and decided to dissolve their marriage with mutual consent and are bound to file the petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of District Judge, Ludhiana. 

Learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the factum of compromise. 

As per compromise, they have decided to withdraw all their cases against each other, as mentioned in para No. 2 of the compromise. Petitioner No. 1 will pay Rs. 2 lacs in lump-sum to respondent NO. 2 towards full and final settlement. The minor Gurnoor Kaur would be remained under the custody of petitioner No. 1, who will be fully responsible for the upbringing of the minor in future and respondent No. 2 will have no right to claim the custody of minor in future. The petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage has already been filed by the parties, vide Annexure P-3. 

As per compromise (Annexure P-2), both the parties have settled the dispute amicably as per the conditions recorded in the compromise. Counsel for the respondent No.2 does not dispute the genuineness of the compromise (Annexure P-2) annexed with the petition. Broad guidelines have been lid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh ad Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another 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."

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) if the Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

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 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 Crl. Misc No. M-39262 of 2011 (O&M) -4- 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 non- compoundable. 

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :- 

"1. No useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise - There was no possibility of conviction. 

2 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.

3. Keeping the matter alive with no possibility of conviction is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford."

Consequently, in view of the judgments mentioned above, FIR No. 81 dated 25.09.2009 under Sections 323/324/451/506/427/148/149 of the Code, registered at Police Station Division No. 3, Ludhiana City is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners.

The petition stands disposed of.

January 04, 2012 

(RITU BAHRI) G.Arora JUDGE