Crl. Misc. No. M-4421 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-4421 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision : 11.5.2011 Inderjit Singh ......Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Liaqat Ali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Raghubir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr.Ritesh Pandit Advocate for respondent No.2. **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.65 dated 23.03.2010 under Sections 363/366 (A) of IPC, registered at Police Station Model Town, Ludhiana and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2), entered between the parties. Brief facts of the case are that on 23.03.2010, the complainant has registered the FIR to the effect that he is Sound Operator in Gurdwara SinghSabha, Model Town Extension Ludhiana. In the year 1996, he was married with Narinder Kaur r/o Kanpur and from this wedlock, one son and two daughters were born out. About 05 years ago, he had got panchayati divorce from his wife Narinder Kaur and two children have started living with his wife. His daughter Jaspreet Kaur @ Simran live with him and his mother. Inderjit Singh(petitioner) who is resident of Ludhiana, used to Crl. Misc. No. M-4421 of 2011(O&M) 2 come to Gurdwara Sahib with bad intention for his daughter Jaspreet Kaur @ Simran upon which, he restrained him from doing so many a times. On 03.08.3009, the petitioner enticed away his daughter and when he investigated the matter, then it was revealed that he is running Sex racket in the name of marriage bureau and kept various girls who supplies them further to other people. He had been searching for his daughter at his own level but no clue about her whereabouts. In the above background, F.I.R was registered against the petitioners. However, during the pendency of investigation, both the parties arrived at a compromise with the intervention of respectables and decided to end the matter and to live in peace and harmony. Now the petitioner does not want to proceed with the above mentioned F.I.R. Copy of compromise is annexed as Annexure P-2. The complainant-Jaswinder Singh has filed affidavit in the Court and the same is taken on record. As per affidavit, the complainant has no objection for quashing of the above said FIR. In compliance of order dated 11.02.2011, the trial court has not sent any report with regard to compromise. The complainant is present in the Court who has been identified by his counsel. He has stated that he has no objection for quashing of the above said FIR. 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:- Crl. Misc. No. M-4421 of 2011(O&M) 3 “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 powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power Crl. Misc. No. M-4421 of 2011(O&M) 4 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. Crl. Misc. No. M-4421 of 2011(O&M) 5 3. Keeping the matter alive with no possibility of conviction is a luxury which the Courts, 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.65 dated 23.03.2010 under Sections 363/366 (A) of IPC, registered at Police Station Model Town, Ludhian is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 11, 2011 Savita