Crl. Misc. No.M-18402 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-18402 of 2009 Date of Decision: 05.04.2010 Poonam and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G., Punjab ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No.172 dated 25.06.2009 under Sections 419, 465, 468, 469, 471, 120-B and 34 of I.P.C registered at Police Station Kotwali, Faridkot and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the married couple, as well as, the other accused in the FIR. As per the averments made in the petition, both the petitioners are major. The date of birth of petitioner No.1-Poonam is 14.11.1988 and petitioner No.2-Jatinder Singh is 08.12.1982. The petitioners married against the wishes of respondent No.2. The petitioner No.1 decided to leave the house and came to petitioner No.2 against the consent of her parents. They got married on 20.03.2009 as per Sikh Rites which was solemnized in Gurdwara Baba Dashmesh Pitta Sahib, Mohalla Khokhara, Faridkot and started living Crl. Misc. No.M-18402 of 2009 2 together as husband and wife. The petitioners are facing strong opposition from the parents and relatives of petitioner No.1 because of the fact that petitioner No.2 belongs to Majbi Sikh family and petitioner No.1 belongs to Hindu Arora family and marriage is inter caste marriage. Due to the threat to their life and liberty, they filed Crl. Misc. No.M-8877 of 2009 seeking protection. Thereafter, the matter was compromised with the family of petitioner No.1. Reply has been filed on behalf of the State. As per the reply, the matter has been compromised. The affidavit of Surinder Kumar son of Darshan Singh-respondent No.2 has also been filed along with the reply by way of affidavit of Sewa Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, on behalf of respondent No.1. The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that 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 amity and reduces friction, then it truly is “finest hour of justice”. Disputes which have their genesis not only in matrimonial discord but others as well, such compromise deserves to be accepted. It is further held as under :- “ The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non- compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.” In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as Crl. Misc. No.M-18402 of 2009 3 under :- “ We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the 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 that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” The matter has been compromised. This fact is also borne out from the affidavit filed by Sewa Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, on behalf of respondent No.1-State. The present petition has been jointly filed by the married couple. It is thus evident that the parties are residing happily as husband and wife. As such, no offence under Sections 419, 465, 468, 469, 471, 120-B and 34 of I.P.C can be made out against the present petitioners. The continuation of the said FIR, therefore, shall amount to misuse of the process of law. The affidavit of complainant has also been placed on record as R-1/T by the State that he has no objection, if the FIR is quashed. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.172 dated 25.06.2009 under Sections 419, 465, 468, 469, 471, 120-B and 34 of I.P.C registered at Police Station Kotwali, Faridkot and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 05.04.2010 JUDGE gurpreet