Crl. Misc. No. M-1865 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-1865 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 03.06.2011 Balwinder Singh @ Kala ......Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. P.P.B Duggal, Advocate for the petitioner. Sh. Guninder S. Brar, A.A.G., Punjab for respondent No. 1-State Mr. D.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No. 2 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.224 dated 28.12.2009 under Sections 363/366-A/376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the Code'), registered at Police Station Guruharsahai, District Ferozepur (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise. Brief facts of the case are that the above FIR was registered Crl. Misc. No. M-1865 of 2011 (O&M) -2- at the instance of respondent No. 2 with the allegations that on 22.12.2009 her daughter Paramjit Kaur has solemnized the marriage with the petitioner. He has further stated that he also took away Rs. 1,70,000/- and some gold ornaments also. Petitioner has already married and having two kids, one daughter and one son. He is also having a Zen Car bearing No. DL-8-CC-3422 and in that car, he has taken away the girl of the complainant with him. In the above background, FIR was registered against the petitioner. However, at the stage of investigation, the parties have compromised the mater as per affidavits of Mohinder Singh and her daughter. As per the affidavit of Mohinder Singh, the matter has been compromised with the intervention of the panchayat and respectable. Now the complainant has no objection if the above said FIR be quashed against the petitioner. As per affidavit of Paramjit Kaur, she has stated that she can understand her benefit and loss and further stated that the matter has been compromised. In compliance of order dated 24.01.2011, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court and got recorded their statement. Report of District and Session Judge, Ferozepur has been received in this regard. As per this report, statement of the accused, complainant and her daughter has been recorded. They have stated Crl. Misc. No. M-1865 of 2011 (O&M) -3- that the compromise has been effected between the parties and now they have no complaint against the petitioner. They have further stated that they are making their statements in the Court voluntarily, without any kind of pressure or threat from any side. Similar statement has been suffered by the accused party. However, offence under Section 376 IPC is not compoundable but keeping in view the peculiar facts of the present case that since the prosecutrix has since been married and living peacefully with the petitioner, it would an exercise in futile to continue with the further proceedings against the petitioner. In view of the statement made by the respondents that the compromise has been effected between the parties, the offence under Section 376 IPC is hereby compounded. 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:- “26.In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Crl. Misc. No. M-1865 of 2011 (O&M) -4- 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-1865 of 2011 (O&M) -5- 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 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-1865 of 2011 (O&M) -6- involved – Court should ordinarily accept the compromise. 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 status report, compromise effected between the parties and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases 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.224 dated 28.12.2009 under Sections 363/366-A/376 of the Code, registered at Police Station Guruharsahai, District Ferozepur (Annexure P-1), is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE June 03, 2011 G.Arora