In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M- 31897 of 2008 Date of Decision:February 12, 2009 Bittu ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. Mohd. Salim,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab Mr.Hitesh Ghai, Advocate, for the respondent No. 2 *** SABINA, J. Bittu-petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.')for quashing of FIR No. 222 dated 12.11.2008 under Sections 363, 366A of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Division No. 8, District Jalandhar on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is aged about 16 years whereas the prosecutrix is aged about 15 years. Both of them were having a love affair and had left their houses of their own will for three days. Parties were immediate neighbourers. Now with the intervention of respectables, relatives and neighbourers, the parties have entered into a compromise in order to live in peace in future. Crl. Misc. No. M- 31897 of 2008 -2- Annexure P-1 is the compromise effected between the parties. The Relevant contents of the compromise are reproduced herein below :- “WHEREAS Babli Kumari party of the first part and Bittu son of Amarjit Singh party of the second part were having love affairs with each other and remained stayed away from their houses for 3 days with the consent of each other but against the wishes of their family members and the party of the first part namely Smt. Jamna Devi filed a complaint with this regard and an FIR bearing No. 222 dated 12.11.2008, under Sections 363/366-A, 376, 382 IPC was registered at the police station Division No. 8, Jalandhar when the Babli party of the first part came back to her house she make the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Against the party of the second part under the pressure of her family members, and the offence was enhanced accordingly. NOW, WITH THE INTERVENTION OF THE RELATIVES AND neighbourers, respectables, the parties to this compromise have arrived at compromise/agreement on the following terms and conditions:- 1. That both the parties will move an application for the cancellation of the above said FIR with the office of Sr. Supdt. Of Police, Jalandhar and also make the statement before the police authority with this regard. 2. That the party of second part will file the Crl. Misc. No. M- 31897 of 2008 -3- quashing petition before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High court at Chandigarh if required, in the above said FIR and the party of the first part will make the statement to this effect in way of consented manner. 3.That no party will file any kind of complaint with regard to this incident in future. 4.That in future the said Babli Kumari and Bittu shall not remain any kind of relations with each other.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgments of this Court reported as Surinder Kamboj and others vs. State of Punjab and another 2008(1)RCR(Criminal 21 and Talwinder Singh @ Laddi and another vs. State of Punjab and another 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 970. Respondent No. 2 in her affidavit dated 28.11.2008(Annexure P-2) has stated that now the matter has been compromised with the intervention of the respectables, relations and neighbourers. She does not want to proceed with the FIR, in question and wanted to live in peace in future. She will cooperate with the petitioner in getting the FIR, in question quashed. Respondent No. 2 is present in court along with her counsel and has admitted the contents of the compromise dated 28.11.2008 ( Annexure P-1). As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, Crl. Misc. No. M- 31897 of 2008 -4- High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant vs. Central bureau of Investigation and another JT 2008 (9) SC 192 in paras 23 and 24 has held as under:- “23. In the instant case, the disputes between the Company and the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromise arrived at by them whereunder the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not appear to have any further claim against the Company. What, however, remains is the fact that certain documents were alleged to have been created by the appellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facets. The question which is required to be answered in this case is whether the power which independently lies with this court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised? 24.On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in B.S.Joshi's case (supra) and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also clause 11 of the consent Crl. Misc. No. M- 31897 of 2008 -5- terms filed in the suit filled by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.” Normally in case of the present kind, courts may be reluctant to quash the FIR but in the present case the facts are different. The prosecutrix as well as the petitioner are young. Petitioner is stated to be 16 years old whereas prosecutrix is stated to be 15 years old. Both of them had run away from their houses on account of their love affair. They are resident of the same locality. Now, the parties want to live in peace in future and with the intervention of the neighbours, relations and respectables, they have arrived at a compromise. Complainant is, thus, no more interested in prosecuting the FIR, in question, against the petitioner. Since the parties have arrived at a compromise, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings, in question. There is also nothing to suggest that the compromise in this case is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery. Considering the facts of this case, as noticed in detail, it would be futile to allow this prosecution to continue and if allowed to continue, it may lead to abuse of the process of Court. In the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 222 dated 12.11.2008 under Sections Crl. Misc. No. M- 31897 of 2008 -6- 363, 366A of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Division No. 8, District Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 12, 2009 PARAMJIT