Criminal Misc. No. M- 1088 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 1088 of 2011 Date of decision:- 08.03.2011 Rafi and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Pankaj Satwalia, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.126 dated 04.9.2010 under Sections 363,366-A, 120-B and 506 IPC and under Section 376 IPC (added later on), registered at Police Station Sadar, Gurdaspur, District Gurdaspur (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3). Brief facts of the case are that complainant-respondent No.2 has got an FIR registered against the petitioner Nos.1 to 5 alleging that they have kidnapped his niece Sheri-respondent No.3 from his house. During investigation Sheri-respondent No.3 got her statement recorded and on the basis of which petitioner Nos.6 and 7 were also implicated and offence under Section 376 IPC was added. It has been stated that petitioner No.1-Rafi and respondent No.3- Sheri wanted to get marry each other but paternal uncle of Sheri i.e. respondent Criminal Misc. No. M- 1088 of 2011 -2- No.2 was not ready for the same. Sheri left her house on 03.9.2010 and joined the company of petitioner No.1-Rafi. Before they took marriage, they were apprehended in the abovesaid FIR, which was got registered by respondent No.2, who is paternal uncle of Sheri. The date of birth of respondent No.3-Sheri is 10.01.1993. The certificate issued by Gram Panchayat and Development Officer, Jadera, District Chamba (HP) is Annexure P-2. With the intervention of the respectables of the area, a good sense has prevailed and a compromise was effected between the parties and they have decided to end the litigation and live peacefully. The complainant and the petitioners settled the matter amicably. Affidavits of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in support of compromise have been attached, which are Annexures P-4 and P-5. Original compromise (Annexure P-3) is duly signed by the petitioners and complainant. In compliance of order dated 14.1.2011, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur has sent a report verifying the contents of the compromise. As per this report, on 11.2.2011 statements of Hanif, Jaan Mohammad, Sheri, Rafi, Janu and Yusaf Ali have been recorded. After recording of the statements, the Court satisfied that Sheri has married on 03.1.2011 with Rafi (accused) through Nikny. They are living happily and differences between the parties have been dissolved by them. (Annexure P-3) is valid compromise. From the facts of the case, it transpires that this was a case of marriage conducted against the wishes of families and an FIR had been registered under Sections 363,366-A, 120-B, 506 and 376 IPC by the paternal uncle of the girl Sheri, which was registered on the fear that his niece has been kidnapped. Since the marriage has taken place between Rafi and Sheri on 03.1.2011 and the statements of complainant-Hanif and Jaan Mohammad, father of the girl have been recorded and they are satisfied that the girl is happily residing with his husband. The allegations levelled in the FIR cannot be ruled or gone into at this stage since the parties have compromised the matter. Criminal Misc. No. M- 1088 of 2011 -3- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 1088 of 2011 -4- 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. 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, Criminal Misc. No. M- 1088 of 2011 -5- 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 others vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), FIR No.126 dated 04.9.2010 under Sections 363,366-A, 120-B and 506 IPC and under Section 376 IPC (added later on), registered at Police Station Sadar, Gurdaspur, District Gurdaspur, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. March 08, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE