Criminal Misc. No. M-14790 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-14790 of 2011 Date of decision:-03.6.2011 Surjit Bali ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Narinder S. Lucky, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Daljit Singh Kahlon, Advocate for respondent No.2. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No.144 dated 20.12.2010 under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station City, S.B.S. Nagar on the basis of compromise. The FIR was registered on the statement of complainant- respondent No.2 on the allegation that petitioner has sexually exploited her on the pretext of marriage and later on refused to marriage. After registration of FIR petitioner has since been arrested and is in judicial custody. During the pending proceedings, the matter has been compromised (which is in the form of affidavits Annexures P-2 and P-3). Counsel for the respondent has tendered affidavit of respondent No.2, who is present in the Criminal Misc. No. M-14790 of 2011 -2- Court and identified by his counsel. As per affidavit dated 04.5.2011 during the pendency of the FIR, compromise has been effected between the complainant and petitioner-Surjit Bali with their mutual consent and without any pressure. She does not want to pursue any criminal proceeding with regard to the FIR in question against the petitioner and has no objection if the FIR is quashed. The allegation in the FIR was that she had given Rs.1,50,000/- to Kanta Rani mother of Surjit Bali after withdrawing the same from saving account, which they have refused to return. As per contents of FIR that petitioner was very well known to the respondent and respondent No.2 has been visited Naina Devi with the petitioner. The peculiar facts of the present case appears that petitioner and respondent No.2 had an affair with each other and knew each other. He had taken her to the pretext of marriage and also taken money by making false promises. Since the petitioner is about 18 years of age, peculiar facts of the present case is that it will be exercise of fuitility to put him to face criminal proceedings under Section 376 IPC at such tendered age, once the complainant has decided not to pursue the criminal proceedings. The offence under Section 376 IPC is non-compoundable but looking at the minor age of petitioner, the Court has accepted the affidavit of the complainant. 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 :- Criminal Misc. No. M-14790 of 2011 -3- “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 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 ratio of the Full Bench judgment is a special reference which has been made to the offences against human body other than murder and Criminal Misc. No. M-14790 of 2011 -4- culpable homicide where the victim dies in the course of transaction would fall in the category where compounding may not be permitted. Heinous offences like highway robbery, dacoity or a case involving clear-cut allegations of rape should also fall in the prohibited category. However, the offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide may be permitted to be compounded when the Court is in the position to record a finding that the settlement between the parties is voluntary and fair. The Court must examine the cases of weaker and vulnerable victims with necessary caution. 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 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), FIR No.144 dated 20.12.2010 under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station City, S.B.S. Nagar, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising Criminal Misc. No. M-14790 of 2011 -5- therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. June 3, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE