IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-35964 of 2010 Date of Decision:24.1.2011 Kapil Grover @ Happy and another .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. K.S. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mrs. Gurveen H. Singh, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Mr. Munish Raj, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.72 dated 29.4.2010 under Sections 376,120-B IPC Police Station Malout City, District Muktsar and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. Due to the intervention of the respectable of the area, the matter has been compromised. An affidavit (Annexure P-3) has already been placed on record to this effect. The parties are present in the Court alongwith their respective counsel. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has placed on record the affidavit of respondent No.2 authenticating the compromise. It is submitted in the said affidavit that due to the intervention of the respectables and brotherhood of the parties marriage between Kapil Grover and respondent No.2 has been solemnized on 31.8.2010 and they are leading their CRM M-35964 of 2010 -2- matrimonial life happily. As per the said affidavit, respondent No.2 has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. 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 into acute hardship or misuse of the process of law and may even lead to injustice, causing irreparable loss to the victim or the aggrieved party. Section 376 IPC does not survive any more as the same is resolved by the parties themselves by getting solemnized their marriage with a view to end the litigation. The step taken by the family members of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 by getting them married is the best way to save their future lives and also live with respect and dignity in the society. Learned Single bench of this Court, while accepting the compromise under the same offence in the case of Surinder Kamboj and others v. State of Punjab and another reported in 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 21, held as under:- “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.” CRM M-35964 of 2010 -3- 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 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 v. 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 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.” CRM M-35964 of 2010 -4- Taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties and the affidavit of respondent No.2 stating that she has no objection if the FIR is quashed as well as the fact that the parties have since got married to each other, it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.72 dated 29.4.2010 under Sections 376,120-B IPC Police Station Malout City, District Muktsar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 24.1.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE