Rajan Jain and Others vs State of Punjab and Another

Sabina, J.—Petitioners have filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 48 dated 23.4.2010, under Sections 307/323/109/498/506/149 of Indian Penal Code (in short ''IPC'') registered at Police Station Raman, District Bathinda and all consequent proceedings arising there from on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that now with the intervention of the relatives and friends the parties have arrived at a compromise. Petitioner No. 3 and Respondent No. 2 have decided to get a decree of divorce. Parties have also settled all their disputes qua dowry articles, maintenance etc.

Respondent No. 2, who is present in person along with her counsel, has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties and has stated that now she will apply for a decree of divorce along with Petitioner No. 3. Respondent No. 2 has further stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed. Respondent No. 2 has admitted the contents of compromise (Annexure P-2) and her affidavit Annexure P-3.

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab 2007 (3) RCR 1052, High Court has power u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

Hon''ble the Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, in para Nos. 26 and 24 has held as under:

In the instant case, the disputes between the Company and the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromise arrived at by them where under the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not appear to have any further claim against the Company. What, however, remains is the fact that certain documents were alleged to have been created by the Appellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facts. The question which is required to be answered in this case is whether the power which independently lies with this Court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised?

On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of the Court in B.S. Joshi''s case (supra) and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also Clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filled by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.

In normal circumstances this Court would not proceed to quash FIR u/s 307 IPC on the basis of compromise. However, in the present case the FIR was lodged due to matrimonial discord between the parties. Injuries on the person of Respondent No. 2 have been declared simple in nature. Respondent No. 2 and Petitioner No. 3 are young and in case this FIR is quashed they will be able to move on in life. Petitioner No. 3 and Respondent No. 2 have decided to file a petition seeking divorce. They have also settled all their disputes qua dowry articles and maintenance etc. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the FIR so that the parties can live in peace and move on in life.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The FIR No. 48 dated 23.4.2010, under Sections 307/323/109/498/506/149 IPC, registered at Police Station Raman, District Bathinda and consequent proceedings, arising there from, are quashed.