CRM No. M 33172 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 33172 of 2010 Date of decision: 06.04.2011 Satish Kumar ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Roopak Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner Ms Neelam, AAG, Punjab for the respondent State -.- 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. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 53 dated 20.07.2010 under Section 376, 493 IPC, P S Nurmahal, District Jalandhar (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 4 - complainant against the present petitioner on the basis of the compromise dated 02.11.2010 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. Vide this Court's order dated 23.11.2010, the parties were CRM No. M 33172 of 2010 2 directed to appear before the learned Illaqa Magistrate on 14.12.2010. The Illaqa Magistrate was also directed to record a finding whether any volunteer compromise has been arrived at between the parties. In pursuance to the same, now, vide letter dated 18.12.2010, the District and Sessions Judge, Jalandhar has forwarded the report of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phillaur. As per the said report, the parties have entered into compromise in the Panchayat of both the Villages. 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 ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in CRM No. M 33172 of 2010 3 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.” 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 33172 of 2010 4 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 the facts of the present case, a perusal of FIR shows that no offence under Section 376 IPC is made out. It is a case of consent on the face of it. The boy and the girl were engaged to be married. The girl was a consenting party. Later things turned sour and the marriage did not take place. CRM No. M 33172 of 2010 5 Taking into account the allegations, compromise as well as report of the trial Court, authenticating the genuineness of the said compromise, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the above said settled proposition of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 53 dated 20.07.2010 under Section 376, 493 IPC, P S Nurmahal, District Jalandhar (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 06.04.2011 mohan CRM No. M 33172 of 2010 6