Criminal Misc. No. M-10079 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-10079 of 2011 Date of decision:-20.5.2011 Narinderdeep Singh @ Sonu ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Ms. G.K. Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl.A.G. Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Kushaldip S. Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.2. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No.80 dated 27.5.2010 under Sections 376 and 384 IPC, registered at Police Station Sultanwind, District Amritsar (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). The FIR was registered on the statement made by Amritpal Kaur- respondent No.2 against all the accused on the allegation that about 1-½ years back petitioner-Narinderdip Singh son of Balbir Singh (Billa) used to commit rape upon her with the false assurance to solemnize marriage with her. Subsequently, the accused refused to get marriage with her. The complainant got married on 28th of March with Shamsher Singh in Gurudwara Guru Ram Dass, Sevak Sabha. After her marriage, petitioner started interfering in her married life, which resulted into quarrels between husband and wife. He tried to blackmail her by asking giving some money. In the above background the FIR Criminal Misc. No. M-10079 of 2011 -2- was registered. After investigation challan was presented. Respondent No.2 is present in the Court with her parents and identified by her counsel. She has given her affidavit to the effect that with the intervention of respectable and common friends, she has compromised the matter with the petitioner. She is living happily with her husband. The offence under Section 376 IPC is non-compoundable and keeping in view the special circumstances of the case, the girl is now married and living happily with her husband and does not want to pursue the criminal proceedings initiated in the FIR and has compromised the matter willfully without any pressure. 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-10079 of 2011 -3- 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 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. Criminal Misc. No. M-10079 of 2011 -4- 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 Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), FIR No.80 dated 27.5.2010 under Sections 376 and 384 IPC, registered at Police Station Sultanwind, District Amritsar, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. May 20, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE