CRM No. M 24668 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 24668 of 2010 Date of decision: 08.03.2011 Manvir Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Vikram Preet Arora, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. J S Brar, AAG, Punjab for the respondent State Mr. Maninder Arora, Advocate for respondent No. 2 -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR No. 76 dated 15.05.2010 under Section 376, 511 IPC read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, registered at Police Station Morinda District Ropar on the basis of compromise dated 20.08.2010. On 15.05.2010, the aforesaid FIR was got lodged by respondent No. 2 against the present petitioner. Later on, Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was added. CRM No. M 24668 of 2010 2 Now, the matter has been compromised. The compromise deed dated 20.08.2010 has been placed on record as Annexure P2. As per the compromise, the parties do not want to pursue the aforesaid FIR. Normally, this Court would not have exercised its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise involving such serious offence as in the present case. However, the facts in the present case are different. In the present case, FIR was registered by respondent No. 2 who is father of respondent No. 3. However, from the perusal of the FIR, no offence under Section 376 IPC is made out against the present petitioner. Allegation in the FIR reads as under:- “...when Kulwinder Kaur was returning after throwing the dung then Manvir Singh alias Bholu son of Swaran Singh resident of Oind Village grappled her and threw her on earth and tried to open string of salwar of Kulwinder Kaur and tried to commit rape of my daughter who raised rola (alarm). My wife Gurmail Kaur reach at the spot. Then Kulwinder Kaur pushed him and we saved ourselves by running from the spot. Kulwinder Kaur and my wife told my the entire story after reaching in the house.” The offence, if at all, falls under Section 354 IPC. Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in some what similar circumstances, in the cases of Premiya alias Prem Parkash v. State of Rajasthan reported as 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 539 and Tarkeshwar Sahu v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) reported as 2006(4) RCR (Criminal) 603 held that offence under Section 376 IPC is not made out and, if at all, it was a case under Section 354 IPC. CRM No. M 24668 of 2010 3 Till date, the prosecutrix herself has not levelled any allegation. She has rather filed her affidavit in Court today, stating therein, that she has no objection if the said FIR is quashed. Even, complainant/respondent No. 2, who is father of respondent No. 3 has also filed his affidavit in Court today, stating therein, that he has no objection if the said FIR is quashed. In fact, Respondent No. 2 has got recorded his statement ini Court today,stating therein, that the prosecutrix is major as on date and as such, her wish not to proceed further with the case be accepted. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another-2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has observed as under:- “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 reduced 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 exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.” The Apex Court in the case of 'Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:- “6. We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should CRM No. M 24668 of 2010 4 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 utilized 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 (Criminal) 21, held as under :- “9. Normally courts may be reluctant to cut short prosecution in such like cases and quash FIR on the basis of compromise, but this case appears to be different and strange in nature. The prosecutrix apparently has blown hot and cold at different stages of the case. She first approached Human Rights Commission but then withdrew her complaint when it was found not substantiated on enquiry. She then approached this Court for proper enquiry into the FIR but again made a somersault by moving application for withdrawing her petition at subsequent stage. She seems to be somewhat consistent now and does not wish to prosecute this FIR registered at her instance. This matter was enquired into under the directions of Human Rights Commission. This independent probe has revealed that the allegations are not substantiated. It appears that the prosecutrix has been playing into the hands of some persons and has been used as pawn in some political game. This perhaps is the only explanation for her CRM No. M 24668 of 2010 5 changing stances at different stages of the pendency of this case. The fact remains that now the prosecutrix is no more interested in prosecuting this FIR against the petitioners. The proceedings against the petitioners would thus appear to be an abuse of process of Court. 10. xxx xxx xxx xxx 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.” This Court, in the case of Talwinder Singh @ Laddu vs. State of Punjab reported in 2008(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 970, was pleased to quash the FIR under similar offence and nature i.e. under Section 376 IPC and held as under :- “6. Keeping in view the enunciation of law as referred to above and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case, once the matter has been compromised between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the prosecution. Accordingly, FIR No.33 dated 15.02.2008 registered under Sections 363, 342, 366, 376 and 120-B IPC at Police Station, Islamabad, Amritsar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.” In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 76 dated 15.05.2010 under Section 376, 511 IPC read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of CRM No. M 24668 of 2010 6 Atrocities)Act, registered at Police Station Morinda District Ropar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 08.03.2011 mohan CRM No. M 24668 of 2010 7