Criminal Misc. No. M-82 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-82 of 2010 Date of decision:-05.5.2011 Sunil Kumar now changed his name as Imran Khan ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. S.S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. None for respondent No.2. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No.57 dated 12.6.2009 under Sections 363,366-A and 380 IPC, registered at Police Station Nangal, District Ropar on the basis of compromise. The petitioner has got married to Reshma daughter of complainant- respondent No.2, who belongs to Mohammadan Caste, on 10.5.2009. When the complainant had gone to village Hambaiwal alongwith his wife to see his son-in- law, the petitioner had enticed her daughter, who was about 17-½ years of age and fled with her. The petitioner had filed a complaint dated 13.6.2009 under Sections 351,352,355 and 506 IPC before the Judicial Magistrate, Ropar on account of the fact that he was beaten up by the complainant-respondent No.2. The statement was made by Reshma wife of petitioner before the Magistrate that she apprehend danger to their life and liberty. The had performed the marriage Criminal Misc. No. M-82 of 2010 -2- with their own sweet will and without any pressure of any kind. As per the petitioner, his wife is 8th passed and was 17 years and 10 months on the date of marriage. Relies on Bhagwan Singh versus State 2007(1) RCR 347 to contend that marriage with the minor, whose about 17 years is not illegal nor void on account of age. Similar view has been taken by this Court in Balwinder Singh Versus State of Punjab 2008(3) RCR 1. Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG Punjab on instructions from ASI Sanjeev Kumar has informed the Court that the complainant has compromised the matter and accepted the marriage of the petitioner with his daughter Reshma. Statement has been given on 01.2.2011 by way of affidavit given to the police that he is not interested in pursuing the said FIR and has no objection if the FIR is quashed. 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. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-82 of 2010 -3- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-82 of 2010 -4- 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. 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.57 dated 12.6.2009 under Sections 363,366-A and 380 IPC, registered at Police Station Nangal, District Ropar, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. May 05, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE