IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-12377 of 2010 Date of decision : 22.9.10 Pardeep Kumar @ Deepi …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ….. Respondents Present : Mr. Hardeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.S. Salana, DAG, Punjab. Mr. J.S. Ahlawat, Advocate for the complainant with Palwinder Singh (respondent No.2) and his wife Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur in person. *** S.S. SARON, J. The original compromise dated 31.3.2010 and the affidavit of Palwinder Singh (respondent No.2) filed in Court today are taken on record. Heard counsel for the parties. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of FIR No.586 dated 24.12.2009 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Patiala The FIR (Annexure P1) has been lodged by the complainant Palwinder Singh (respondent No.2). It is alleged by him that he is doing the work of photography at home and his wife Sukhwinder Kaur is working at D.V. Boutique at Preet Nagar near Bhudha Dal Public School, Crl. Misc. No. M-12377 of 2010 [2] Patiala. For their daily work they had to go out of their house and their daughter who was studying in 10th class was at home. About 2 months earlier, she had gone to take coaching of hockey at hockey academy at Sector-18, Chandigarh and due to some problem in the spinal cord, she came back from the Academy to Patiala and she was staying at home only. On 15.12.2008, Palwinder Singh (respondent No.2/complainant) had gone out for his work and his wife had also gone out. Their daughter was alone at home. In the evening, when the complainant came back then his wife informed him that their daughter had gone to Ayurvedic College to meet her friend, but had not returned. Her mobile phone was also switched off. The complainant tried his best to find his daughter with all relatives and her friends but he did not get to know her whereabouts. On 23.12.2009, he came to know that the petitioner Pradeep Kumar @ Deepi son of Rohtas had enticed their daughter and kidnapped her. She was less than 17 years of age and was a minor. The quashing of the FIR is now sought in view of the compromise that has been entered into between Palwinder Singh (respondent No.2/complainant) and the petitioner Pardeep Kumar @ Deepi. In terms of the compromise dated 31.3.2010, it is mentioned that the complainant does not want to proceed with the case and it has been decided by the parties not to indulge in any further dispute. The children of both the parties are students and keeping in view their future prospects and the marriage prospects, besides, their further studies, both the parties Crl. Misc. No. M-12377 of 2010 [3] have decided to compromise the matter. Palwinder Singh (respondent No.2) has also deposed an affidavit that he and his daughter do not want to proceed with the FIR against the petitioner. Reply by way of affidavit of Balraj Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, City-I, Patiala has been filed in which it is stated that the copy of the compromise has not been supplied to the police. Besides, the compromise has been effected outside the police and the police has no role in the compromise effected between the parties. It is stated that quashing of FIR is not maintainable as there is sufficient evidence against the petitioner with the police to prosecute him. Palwinder Singh (respondent No.2/complainant) and his wife Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur are present in Court and are identified by their counsel. They both have stated that they have compromised the matter keeping in view the future prospects of their daughter and they do not want to pursue the matter. It is submitted that the compromise has been entered into by them with their own sweet will and desire and without any kind of pressure or undue influence of anybody. The case relates to the offences under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC whereby the petitioner is alleged to have enticed the daughter of the complainant/respondent No.2. The parents of both the parties, keeping in view the future prospects of their children, have decided to compromise the matter. The compromise has been amicably reached at and there is no pressure or undue influence on the complainant. Crl. Misc. No. M-12377 of 2010 [4] The complainant Palwinder Singh (respondent No.2) and his wife Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur are present in Court and they have decided to compromise the matter with the petitioner. Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Sarabjit Singh, Police Station Kotwali, District Patiala has submitted that in case the parties have indeed settled their dispute, the State would have no serious objection to the quashing of the FIR. The dispute between the parties is personal in nature inasmuch as their children had gone out on their own. They have now decided to amicably resolve the same. In Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 582 it was observed by the Supreme Court as follows:- We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where by question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the Crl. Misc. No. M-12377 of 2010 [5] matter based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law. Besides, a five Judges Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 has observed as follows:- “ 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) of the CrPC, or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the CrPC. 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 CrPC is sued to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is ‘finest Crl. Misc. No. M-12377 of 2010 [6] 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 CrPC 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”. In view of the above, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No.586 dated 24.12.2009 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Patiala for the offences under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC and all subsequent and consequential proceedings arising therefrom shall stand quashed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE September 22, 2010 amit