1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 27973-M of 2009 Date of Decision: 7.10.2009 *** Ajay Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh & Anr. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate for petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Heard. Notice of motion. Ms. Ashima Mor, Advocate for Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate has accepted notice for UT Chandigarh, while respondent No.2 who is present in person and identified by counsel for the petitioner, accepts notice. Through the instant petition quashing of FIR No. 12 dated 13.1.2009, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, registered at P.S. Sector 11, Chandigarh and consequent proceedings have been sought, on the basis of compromise entered between the parties. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 Amar Nath got lodged the impugned FIR against the petitioner with the allegations that on 12.1.2009 he enticed away her minor daughter on the false promises. Thus, legal action against him was sought. After the registration of the FIR, investigation in the case was carried out. The girl was recovered and the petitioner and girl were medicolegally examined. On completion of the investigation, final report against the accused was presented in the Court, where he was charge sheeted and it has been pointed out by learned counsel appearing for UT Chandigarh that statement of prosecutrix has been recorded before the Court. Now what has developed in the matter is that, with the 2 intervention of Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court, the petitioner and prosecutrix decided to marry each other. In this view of the matter, petitioner was granted bail by this Court and now the Court has been apprised that after solemnization of marriage, the couple is living happily and the said marriage has also endorsed by the complainant i.e. father of the prosecutrix. Respondent No.2, who is present in the Court has also reiterated the stand and has asserted no objection to the quashing of the FIR. Now on these broad facts, the quashing of the FIR has been sought. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact the petitioner and prosecutrix have love affair with each other and the complainant who was not satisfied with this relation, got the impugned FIR lodged, but now he is also recognizing the marriage. It has further been contended that in case the learned trial court passes any adverse order against the petitioner, in that eventuality, the whole exercise would resulted into naught. By now it is fully settled that the High Court in exercise of inherent powers can quash the proceedings if it finds that allowing of any such proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court or that ends of justice require that the proceedings be quashed. In the case of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswami, AIR 1977 SC 1489, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the ends of justice are higher than ends of mere law, though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the legislature yet the Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In the case of Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya and others 1980(1) SCC 63, the essence of compromise has been summed up in following words:- “ The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.” In the instant case, as emerges from record, the petitioner and prosecutrix have married each other and this appreciated step shall gives them a new social status in the society. Keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case, is of the considered view that continuance of such a prosecution is 3 nothing but an exercise in futility and sheer wastage of time of Court. Therefore, considering the aspect of settlement having arrived at between the parties, it is a fit case where interference of this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out. Therefore, in view of the discussion made above, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned FIR and all other consequent proceedings thereto, are quashed. However, it is made clear that this order cannot be taken as a precedent and has been passed keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE October 7, 2009 Jiten