Shri Arun Kumar Vohra vs Mrs. Ritu Vohra And Anr.
1994 Latest Caselaw 737 Del

JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR under Section 307/34 read with Section 498-A/324, IPC and proceedings pending before the concerned Additional Sessions Judge. The complainant in this case is Ritu Vohra wife of the petitioner Arun Kumar Vohra. The petitioner was married to the respondent in the year 1981 and two children were born from the wedlock. It is mentioned in the petition that the petitioner and respondent are educated and belong to respectable families and they do not want to indulge in any prolonged litigation and mud-slinging which would psychologically upset the minds of their children and their parents and they want to settle their differences in a decent manner. It is further mentioned in the petition that some of the offences are non-compoundable in nature so they have sought indulgence of this Court for quashing the FIR. The petitioner and the respondent have also appeared in Court and reiterated the aforesaid averments.

2. The learned Counsel appearing for the parties submitted that in the larger interest of peace and harmony of the parties, the FIR filed by the complainant against the petitioner be quashed. The learned Counsel for the parties placed reliance on Sanjay Kumar and Anr. v. State of M.P., 1994 S.C.C. (Crl) 586. In this case, though the Trial Court had acquitted the appellants but the High Court convicted them under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. The conviction was converted from the one under Section 307 to that under Section 324 IPC and the Court observed as under :

"Since the parties who are neighbours have expressed a desire to compound the matter and since the learned Counsel for the complainant who is present before us has also stated that her client has desired that permission to compound the matter may be granted to ensure lasting peace, we see no difficulty in granting the permission to the parties to compound the matter. An affidavit in that behalf has already been filed and the same is on record. We accept the same and treat the matter as compounded. In view thereof, the conviction and sentence are set aside and the appellants will stand acquitted as the matter has been compounded with the permission of the Court. The appeal will stand disposed of accordingly."

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to the Judgment of the Supreme Court Ram Prasad and Anrs. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1982) S.C.C.149.

4. In this case, the conviction of the appellant was converted from one under Section 307/34, IPC to Section 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed:

"Since the parties belong to the same village and desire to compound the offence we think in the larger interest of peace and harmony between the parties, and having regard to the nature of injuries, that it would be proper to allow the parties to compound the offences."

5. The petitioner also cited judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. State IV (1993) Current Criminal Reports, 2590:

"In view of the fact that the parties have compromised the matter and petitioner No. 2 has remarried, I am of the opinion that it would be in the interest of both the parties if the Trial Court compounds the offence with which the petitioner No. 1 is charged. This will generate peace and goodwill between the parties and will end litigation between them. In view of the special circumstances of the case, the Trial Court is directed to compound the offence under Section 307 IPC with which petitioner No. 1 is charged in case FIR 164/92 P.S. Saraswati Vihar, Delhi."

6. In this case, the Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1989 S.C.2111, wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in view of the special circumstances of the case, directed the Trial Court to accord permission to compound offence under Section 307 IPC.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also cited the judgment of Rajasthan High Court Sri Narain v. State of Rajasthan, II (1994) Current Criminal Reports, 1151. In this case, the Court has observed that the High Court and the Supreme Court have inherent powers to pass orders under the Code to secure the ends of justice. Hence, if it comes to the knowledge of the High Court that in recording the compromise of the case, ends of justice would be secured, it is essential to pass such orders.

8. The Court further observed that even otherwise, not to allow compromise may also result in such circumstances to the same end because the complainant in that case would not support the prosecution story and the Court instead of advancing the cause of justice would encourage perjury and if that is not done at trial, evil thoughts will again start in the minds of the parties for having another innings of battle.

9. The learned Counsel has also drawn my attention to the case of Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1993 (2) Chandigarh Criminal Cases, 444. In this case, a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed for quashing the FIR under Sections 307/326/324/323/148/149, IPC. In this case, though the case was registered but no challan was filed. The Court observed as under:-

"From the compromise deed and the affidavit furnished by the respondent it is made out that the parties are no longer daggers drawn and whatever dispute was there which resulted in the incident has been settled amicably. The compromise is arrived at without any threat or coercion by either side. It is correct that some of the offences mentioned in the FIR are not compound-able yet the Courts always lean in favor of compromise even in cases which are not compoundable. This fact is not denied that none of the injured suffered any grievous injury and remained as indoor patient. Although the occurrence took place long back, yet challan has not been presented against the parties. The chances of conviction are bleak -- Interest of justice call for quashing -- Petition allowed."

10. I have carefully considered the judgments of the Supreme Court and of various other High Courts and of this Court. I have also heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner and the respondent have also appeared before me. I am satisfied that the petitioner and the respondent have amicably settled their disputes and differences. The petitioner and the respondent were husband and wife.

11. Looking to the extremely close relationship between the parties and also after considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, in the larger interest of peace, harmony and interest of minor children of the parties and their parents, 1 direct that FIR No. 103/92, P.5. Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, under Section 307/34/498-A/34, IPC and proceedings pending before the concerned Additional Sessions Judge are hereby quashed.

The petition is accordingly disposed of.