Crl. Misc. No.M-9789 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-9789 of 2010 Date of Decision: 21.01.2011 Karamjit Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. K.S. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Surinder S. Dhaliwal, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. A.S. Dhindsa, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** 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. This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR No.244 dated 02.10.2007 under Sections 363, 366, 494 of Indian Penal Code (Section 376 IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Sadar Khanna, on the basis of compromise and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. On 16.07.2010, affidavit of the complainant-Rajinder Singh son of Surjit Singh was placed on record stating therein that the matter has been compromised. In order to show that Mandeep Kaur daughter of the complainant had compromised and she had no objection in quashing the FIR, a copy of affidavit (P-7) was placed on record. However, this Court Crl. Misc. No.M-9789 of 2010 2 adjourned the case sine die with permission to either of the parties to move an application for taking up the matter, as and when, Mandeep Kaur came back from Australia and was able to get her statement recorded. In view of the above, Crl. Misc. No.3069 of 2011 has now been moved with a prayer to take up the matter for hearing as the prosecutrix Mandeep Kaur is present in India and is ready to make her statement. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the Crl. Misc. Application is allowed and the matter is taken up for hearing today itself. FIR No.244 dated 02.10.2007 under Sections 363, 366, 494 of Indian Penal Code (Section 376 IPC added later on) was got registered at Police Station Sadar Khanna by the father of the prosecutrix-Mandeep Kaur. Mandeep Kaur, daughter of the complainant is present in the Court and got her statement recorded, wherein, she has stated that the matter has been compromised between them and in light of the compromise, she has no objection, if the aforesaid FIR is quashed. Affidavit to this effect has also been filed by Mandeep Kaur. No doubt, at the time of presenting the challan before the trial Court, an offence under Section 376 IPC was added but from the perusal of the FIR, Section 376 IPC is not made out. The relevant part of the FIR reads thus :- “ Now we have inform that Karamjit Singh s/o Mewa Singh resident of Ward No.10, near Mangat Mill Chandigarh Road, Samrala has ran away my daughter Mandeep Kaur by instigating and fear her with intention to marry her by showing himself as bachelor who is already married with Gurjit Kaur daughter of Bhajan Singh resident of Village Khatran and has two children i.e son and daughter aged 16 years.” The fact that Mandeep Kaur had willingly accompanied the Crl. Misc. No.M-9789 of 2010 3 petitioner, is not disputed. In fact, the petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the petitioner and Mandeep Kaur before the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Samrala. Since, Mandeep Kaur had to go abroad, application for seeking exemption for a period of six months for a decree of divorce by way of mutual consent was filed before the concerned Court on 23.03.2009. However, the same was dismissed on 25.03.2009. Admittedly, Mandeep Kaur could not be present on 29.09.2009 when the divorce petition was fixed for hearing. Since, neither the petitioner nor Mandeep Kaur was present, the petition was dismissed in default. It is, however, apparent from the above that the Mandeep Kaur had got married to the petitioner. Whether the said marriage was valid or not, is a separate issue. The fact remains that Mandeep Kaur is a grown up and educated girl. The case under Section 376 IPC would therefore not lie in the facts of the present case. This Court in the case of Crl. Misc. No.M-1674 of 2010 after taking into consideration the law on the subject had held that it would be at the most a breach of trust or cheating but having lived together in a relationship after performing marriage with the consent of the girl who is a grown up lady, cannot be termed as rape. Moreover, the compromise in an FIR involving such offences should not be thrown out or ignored without examining the facts. The same may result in acute hardship or misuse of the process of law and may result in injustice, causing irreparable loss to the victim or the aggrieved party. Here the girl does not want to pursue the proceedings against the present petitioner. The father of the girl came forward with the plea that he should be allowed to withdraw his allegations. 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 Crl. Misc. No.M-9789 of 2010 4 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 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.” Learned Single Bench of this Court, while accepting the compromise under same offence in the case of Surinder Kamboj and others vs State of Punjab and another reported in 2008(1) RCR Crl. Misc. No.M-9789 of 2010 5 (Criminal) 21, held as under :- “ 11. There is nothing to suggest that compromise in this case is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery. Considering the facts as noticed in detail, it will be futile to allow this prosecution to continue and if allowed to continue, it may lead to abuse of the process of Court.” Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that the said FIR will always stand in the way of her life, as well as, taking into account that the said offence is not made out in the present case, it would be in the interest of justice if compromise is accepted and FIR No.244 dated 02.10.2007 under Sections 363, 366, 494 of Indian Penal Code (Section 376 IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Sadar Khanna and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are quashed. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.244 dated 02.10.2007 under Sections 363, 366, 494 of Indian Penal Code (Section 376 IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Sadar Khanna and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 21.01.2011 JUDGE gurpreet