Crl. Misc. No. M-19804 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-19804 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.05.2011 Jasvir Singh @ Jassa and others ......Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Munish Kumar, A.A.G, Punjab **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 45 dated 21.02.2010 under Sections 377/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the Code') , registered at Police Station Division No. 7 (Vardhman) District Ludhiana City and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2), entered between the parties. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.02.2010, when the complainant was alone in her house with her mother then Jasvir Singh came to the door of the complainant and called her. When the complainant came out, she saw Jasvir Singh along with his brother Ranjit Singh and Dalbir Singh. They told the complainant that they need a room to sleep. When the complainant got the blankets from the slab to given them then Jasvir caught hold of her hair and dragged her on the bed. Ranjit Singh caught hold of her breast and Dalbir singh gave slap strongly on her mouth due to Crl. Misc. No. M-19804 of 2010 (O&M) -2- which she became unconscious. After two three hours when she became conscious, she found herself nude and feeling pain in her both back and front of private parts. The complainant has further told that she knew these persons from 1½ years and they used to came to her house earlier also. Jasvir Singh taken Rs. 80,000/- as loan in installments and not returning her inspite of demand by her. In the above background, the FIR was registered against the petitioners. After registration of FIR, the case is now at the stage of investigation. However, during the pendency of the investigation, both the parties arrived at a compromise on 03.05.2010 (Annexure P2). As per compromise, on 10.10.2010, the petitioners have felt sorry for their said acts and a compromise has been arrived between the parties with the intervention of the respectables. Now both the parties have no objection if both the said FIRs are cancelled and they shall be discharged from the case. Both the parties undertake to appear before the respective trial Courts and deposed evidence in favour of each other. It was further agreed that they will also not file any Civil, Criminal or damages case or any other proceedings against each other in future. The compromise has been arrived at between the parties with their own free will and without there being any pressure or coercion from any side and now they have no grudge against each other. In compliance of order dated 15.02.2011, the parties were directed to appear before the Court for recording of their statements. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana has sent its report. As per report, statements of complainant and accused have been recorded. As per statement of the complainant, the compromise has been arrived between the parties with the Crl. Misc. No. M-19804 of 2010 (O&M) -3- intervention of the respectables and now she does not have any grudge against accused and also has no objection if the FIR is cancelled and they are discharged. She admitted the contents of EX.P1, which is the compromise (Annexure P2). Joint statement of accused have also been recorded and they have also admitted the factum of compromise. Even though offence under Sections 377 of Cr.P.C is non-compoundable as per Section 320(2) Cr.P.C, however, in the present case, once the complainant has decided not to pursue further with the proceedings, it would be an exercise in futility to keep the trial pending against all the petitioners. So, the offence under Section 377 of the Code is hereby compounded. Broad guidelines have been laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 for quashing the prosecution when parties entered into compromise. The Full Bench has observed that this power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- “26. In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, (1980)1 SCC 63, Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the essence of compromise in the following words :- “The finest hour of justice arrived propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.” 27. The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted Crl. Misc. No. M-19804 of 2010 (O&M) -4- 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) if the Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 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 Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social emity 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 Cr.P.C. 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.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429 has examined a case where quashing was sought of an FIR under Crl. Misc. No. M-19804 of 2010 (O&M) -5- Section 406 IPC being non-compoundable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :- “1. No useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise – There was no possibility of conviction. 2 It is advisable that in the disputes where question involved is of purely personal nature and no public policy is involved – Court should ordinarily accept the compromise. 3. Keeping the matter alive with no possibility of conviction is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford.” Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (supra) and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (supra) , this Court has no hesitation to quash the present FIR in view of compromise entered between the parties. FIR No. 45 dated 21.02.2010 under Sections 377/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the Code') , registered at Police Station Division No. 7 (Vardhman) District Ludhiana City) is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 18, 2011 G.Arora