WPCRL/1159/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 1840 UK

               Office Notes,
              reports, orders
SL.           or proceedings
      Date                                   COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No           or directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                 WPCRL 1159/2022
                                 Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, Advocate, and Mr. Hitesh Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Sachin Panwar, for the State/respondents no. 1 to 3.

Mr. Imran Ali Khan, Advocate, for the complainant/respondent no. 4.

Petitioners have filed this writ petition along with compounding application seeking to quash the FIR registered as Case Crime No. 706 of 2021, under Sections 323, 354, 498-A, 504, 506, 376, 511 IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in PS Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar, in terms of compromise.

Complainant/respondent no. 4 is wife of petitioner no. 1, while petitioner no. 2 is elder brother of petitioner no. 1, petitioner no. 3 is father-in-law, petitioner no. 4 is mother-in-law and petitioner no. 5 is sister- in-law of the complainant/victim, who lodged the impugned FIR alleging the aforementioned offences.

Petitioners and respondent no. 4 (complainant/victim), duly identified by their respective Counsel, appeared before this Court on 20.6.2022. On that day, complainant/victim made a statement that she has entered into a settlement with her husband and his family members, who are named as accused in the FIR, therefore, she is not interested in prosecuting them and now she does not have any grievance against them. She also stated that she does not want to pursue the matter any further and wants to start a new life. Hence, learned Counsel for the parties also submitted that in view of amicable settlement of the dispute, parties may be permitted to compound the offences.

Learned State Counsel objected to the compounding application stating that offences under Section 376, 354, 511, 498A IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are non-compoundable.

No doubt, offences under Section 376, 354, 511, 498A IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are non- compoundable. However, in appropriate cases and in order to bring peace and harmony between the parties, non- compoundable offences can also be permitted to be compounded by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the parties have entered into a compromise, therefore, possibility of the trial resulting into conviction of the accused is remote and bleak and, that being so, continuation of criminal proceedings would visit the accused with great oppression, prejudice and injustice. Rather, it would tantamount to abuse of process of law. Ends of justice would be met only if criminal proceedings are put to an end, because this would allow the parties to translate their decision to live in peace in the reality. The only consideration for the compromise reached between the parties seems to be their desire to burry the hatchet for all times to come. 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.

The above view is supported by the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in B.S. Joshi, (2003) 4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant, (2008) 9 SCC 677; and Manoj Sharma, (2008) 16 SCC 1.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners also relied upon judgment passed by Allahabad High Court in Abhishek Gupta v. State of U.P. & Others, 2014 SCC OnLine All 14436, wherein the matrimonial discord between the parties led to lodging of FIR under Sections 498A, 323, 377, 376, 511, 354, 120B, 506, 504 IPC and Sections 3/4 of Domestic Violence Act. Subsequently, parties entered into compromise and amicably settled the dispute. Based on the said settlement and relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Allahabad High Court observed that "Once immediate reason for lodging FIR has been matrimonial discord and relationship has been given slant of an offence under Section 376 & 377 IPC, and settlement has been arrived at in between parties, and this Court being fully conscious of the fact, that entire exercise henceforth would be of no consequence and contrarily would disturb harmony and peace inter-se parties, and by remotest chance would never end up in conviction" and quashed the said FIR.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner cited another judgment passed by Punjab & Haryana High Court in Kashmir Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & Another, 2014 SCC OnLine P&H 8344, wherein wife lodged FIR under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC, and Section 376 IPC was added later on, against her husband and other family members. Subsequently, parties amicably settled the dispute. Punjab & Haryana High Court, relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh case, accepted the compromise and quashed the FIR.

Learned Counsel cited an off late judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 510 of 2022, Sachin Jain v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. In this case, husband obtained an ex-parte decree of divorce, but continued to have physical relationship with wife, who subsequently lodged an FIR under Section 376 IPC. However, later they arrived at mutual settlement and entered into compromise, based on which a petition under Section 482 CrPC was filed for quashing of FIR. High Court dismissed the said petition, appeal against which was allowed and FIR was quashed by Hon'ble Apex Court holding that "Since, the disputes between the parties, who were husband and wife, have now been settled, we find it to be a fit case to exercise our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice in the mater and quash the criminal proceedings pending against the appellant."

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the legal proposition propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the compounding application is allowed. Compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. Impugned FIR registered as Case Crime No. 706 of 2021, under Sections 323, 354, 498-A, 504, 506, 376, 511 IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered in PS Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar, is quashed qua petitioners in terms of compromise.

This writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 27.6.2022 Pr