CRM No. M 13715 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 13715 of 2010 Date of decision: 03.08.2010 Sewa Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Vivek K Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State Mr. Vivek Dadwal, Advocate for the complainant -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 117 dated 23.11.2009 under Sections 376, 365, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Kapurthala (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 2-Seema (complainant). As per the case put forward by the prosecution, on 21.11.2009, at about 11.00 pm when the complainant got up to answer the call of nature, CRM No. M 13715 of 2010 2 she found that outside door of her house was open and presuming that her elder brother who is mentally retarded might have gone outside while leaving the door open, she stepped out. According to the complainant, the present petitioner along with one Gopi son of Mangat Ram forcibly made her to sit on the motor cycle and brought her to the Dera of the petitioner where she was raped while the said Gopi stood guard. Thereafter, both of them brought her back on the same motor cycle and left her near the street of her house. On 23.11.2009, the present FIR was lodged against the petitioner. After registration of the FIR, both the parties entered into compromise and respondent No. 2 gave her affidavit (P2) stating therein that she does not wish to take any action against the petitioner as the FIR was registered on instigation by other people. Para 2 of the aforesaid affidavit reads as under:- “2. That I hereby declare affirm that I could not identify any person due to there being darkness in the night. The name of above noted accused has been got recorded by me on the instigation by the people.” Reply by way of affidavit dated 26.07.2010 of Seema (complainant) has also been filed. Para 3 of the aforesaid reply reads as under:- “That in the present case both the parties have entered into a compromise with the intervention of respectables persons of the area and now the deponent/respondent No.2 have no grudge with the present petitioner and she does not want to pursue the present FIR as the present FIR has been lodged CRM No. M 13715 of 2010 3 on the instigation of the people.” Additional affidavit of Seema (complainant) has also been filed in Court today stating therein that her marriage has been solemnised with Gurditta son of Joginder Singh, resident of Village Kang Kot District Jalandhar on 04.03.2010. It is also submitted, in her affidavit, that she is happily residing in her matrimonial home with her husband and leading peaceful matrimonial life and that continuation of the proceeding will ruin her matrimonial life. Besides stating that she was happily residing her matrimonial home, it is repeated in para 4 of the affidavit as under :- “4. That deponent is recently married and apprehends that continuation of the proceeding will ruin her matrimonial life therefore she don't want to pursue the present case as she has already compromise the matter and given affidavit that she has got recorded the FIR on the instigation of the people.” Affidavit of Jagir Kaur, mother of the complainant, has also been filed in Court today. In para 4 of the aforesaid affidavit, the averments made by Seema are corroborated by the mother as under:- “4. That daughter of deponent is recently married and apprehends that continuation of the proceeding will ruin her matrimonial life therefore she don't want to pursue the present case as she has already compromise the matter and given affidavit that she has got recorded the FIR on the instigation of the people.” Whatever be the reasons for the registration of the FIR, one thing is evident that the FIR was not the personal choice of respondent No. CRM No. M 13715 of 2010 4 2 and the same was registered at the behest of others. As such, it is doubtful as to whether the case was that of rape or whether the same was on account of consent. Be that as it may, the matter already stand compromised. 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 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 CRM No. M 13715 of 2010 5 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.” Normally, this Court would not exercise the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise involving such serious offence as in the present case. Earlier also, almost on similar facts, this Court in the case of Sawinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and Others (CRM M 1455 of 2010, decided on 20.04.2010), while accepting the compromise,made a note of the fact that:- “There is no doubt that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,quashing the FIR on the basis of compromise involving such serious offence as in the present case, should be exercised with restraint. At the same time, the compromise in an FIR involving such offences should not be thrown out or ignored without examining the facts. In fact, it should immediately invite the attention of the Court. Otherwise, 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.” 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 CRM No. M 13715 of 2010 6 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 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 CRM No. M 13715 of 2010 7 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.” As stated above, normally, the Courts should exercise restrain while cutting short the prosecution in such like cases. The facts appear to be different in the present case In the present case, respondent No. 2 is happily settled in her matrimonial life. Quashing of the FIR in the facts of the present case will rather secure the ends of justice as for continuation of the trial, she will have to make various visits to the Court. Thus, if her past comes to the fore, her marriage may break down. Her mother is also standing with her and equally concerned that her daughter must be allowed to move on in her life. Moreover, in view of the foregoing discussion, reply in the form of affidavit by respondent No. 2 as well as the additional affidavit and statement before the Court, it is doubtful as to whether the case is of rape or of consent. Continuation of the proceedings will not serve any useful purpose as the allegations are not being substantiated by the complainant in her statement before this Court. She is a matured and married women and is aware of what is being stated by her. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition is CRM No. M 13715 of 2010 8 allowed and FIR No. 117 dated 23.11.2009 under Sections 376, 365, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Kapurthala (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 03.08.2010 mohan