Crl. Misc. No. M- 26885 of 2008(O&M) -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. M- 26885 of 2008(O&M)
Date of Decision:May 11, 2009
Ajay Kumar and others
---Petitioners
versus
Narinder Kaur
---Respondent
Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
***
Present: Mr. H.N.Mehtani,Advocate,
for the petitioner
Mr.Gopal Singh, Advocate,
for respondent.
***
SABINA, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’)for quashing
of complaint titled as “Narinder Kaur vs. Ajay Kumar and others” under
Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 and 5
of the Dowry Prohibition Act (Annexure P-7)and further proceedings in
pursuance thereto.
At the request of counsel for the parties, this case was ordered
to be listed before the Mediation and Conciliation Center. With the efforts
of Mediation and Conciliation Center, parties have arrived at a
Crl. Misc. No. M- 26885 of 2008(O&M) -2-
compromise/settlement. It has been decided that they will withdraw the
cases filed by them against each other. It has also been agreed that Ajay
Kumar-petitioner No. 1 will not seek custody of the minor child who is in
custody of the mother. Petitioner No. 1 will pay Rs. 3.10 lacs vide a bank
draft to the respondent. In view of the compromise, petitioner No.1 and
respondent will move a petition seeking divorce on the basis of mutual
consent under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Respondent
will withdraw the petition filed by her seeking maintenance under Section
125 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner
No. 1 will withdraw the petition filed by him under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955
Petitioner No. 1 and respondent are present in person in Court.
Petitioner No. 1 has handed over a bank draft of Rs. 3.10 lacs to the
respondent. Both the sides have admitted the contents of the
agreement/settlement arrived at between them before Mediation and
Conciliation Center. Respondent who is present in person along with her
counsel has not opposed the quashing of the complaint in question and all
the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder
Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052,
High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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.
Crl. Misc. No. M- 26885 of 2008(O&M) -3-
Central bureau of Investigation and another JT 2008 (9) SC 192 in paras
23 and 24 has held as under:-
“23. 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 whereunder 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 facets. 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?
24.On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and
keeping in mind the decision of this 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.”
Since the parties have arrived at a compromise, no useful
purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings, in
Crl. Misc. No. M- 26885 of 2008(O&M) -4-
question.
Accordingly this petition is allowed. complaint titled as
“Narinder Kaur vs. Ajay Kumar and others” under Sections 406, 498-A of
the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act (Annexure P-7) and all consequential proceeding arising therefrom are
quashed.
(SABINA)
JUDGE
May 11, 2009
PARAMJIT