MAHAVIR S.CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) BY way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, the Code), petitioner, the accused in FIR No.372 dated 27.09.2007 (Annexure P -1) registered under Sections 498A, 406, 420, 380 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC'), at Police Station, City, Faridkot, seeks quashing of the aforesaid FIR saying that the matter has been amicably settled between him and complainant/respondent No.2 as evidenced by the compromise deed dated 02.12.2013 (Annexure P -2) as well as affidavit of respondent No.2 dated 07.12.2013 (Annexure P -3).
(2.) WHILE issuing notice of motion, trial Court was asked to record statements of the parties concerned to find out if the compromise is outcome of free will and consent of the parties and is free from any undue influence/pressure/coercion. Trial Court has submitted a report dated 21.01.2014 affirming that the compromise is outcome of free will and consent of the parties and is free from any undue influence/pressure/coercion. Complainant/respondent No.2, who is being represented by a counsel, has no objection if the afore -stated FIR and proceedings arising therefrom are quashed and it is admitted on her behalf that she has settled the matter with the petitioner by way of the compromise. State also does not object to quashing of the afore -stated FIR. In the FIR, it was alleged by respondent No.2 that she was thrown out of the matrimonial home and was not allowed to use articles of her dowry. Now, in her statement before the trial Court, she has stated that the petitioner has paid to her an amount of Rs.3,50,000/ - towards her and son's maintenance and an amount of Rs.1,00,000/ - he shall pay to her on 09.06.2014, the date fixed for recording her statement in the second motion in a petition for divorce under Section 13 -B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. From the above it is established that the parties to the lis have resolved their inter se dispute amicably and have resolved to live in peace and harmony. In B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and Anr., (2003) 4 SCC 675, the husband was one of the appellants while the wife was 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, 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 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 Indian Penal Code. 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 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) ADJ 40: 2013 (2) ALD(Cri) 148: 2013(3) BomCR(Cri) 438: 116(2013) CLT 572: 2013(2) Crimes 90(SC): (2013)3 GLR 1875: ILR 2013(2) Kerala 89: 2013(2) J.L.J.R. 225: 2013(2) JCC 1365: 2013(2) JLJ 128, JT2013(4) SC 98: 2013(2) KLT 47: 2013 -4 -LW 146, 2013 -2 -LW(Crl) 284: 2013(2) MLJ(Crl) 736: 2013(II) OLR 97: 2013(2) PLJR 312: 2013(2) RCR(Criminal) 427: 2013(2) RLW 1416: 2013 (3) SCALE 537: (2013)4 SCC 58: 2013(2) UC 960 (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 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 power Under Section482 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.CR.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."
(3.) REFERENCE may also 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) PLR 439:2007(2) ILR (Punjab) 338:2007(3) AICLR 818:2007 (4) CCR 280:2007(59) AIC 435:2007(4) CTC 769: 2007(4) KLT 245, 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 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." ;