CRM No. M 13546 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 13546 of 2010 Date of decision: 15.12.2010 Daljit Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Anil Kumar Lamdharia, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. P S Bajwa, DAG, Punjab for the respondent Mr. Narinder Lucky, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3 -.- 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. 102 dated 28.08.2008 under Sections 376, 342 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Bhogpur, District Jalandhar on the basis of compromise dated 12.04.2010 (P1). It was argued that initially FIR No. 102 dated 28.08.2008 under Section 376, 342 of Indian Penal Code was registered against Daljit Singh, Brahmjit Singh and Manjit Kaur. At the time of filing of challan by the CRM No. M 13546 of 2010 2 police, two persons, namely, Brahmjit Singh and Manjit Kaur put in column No.2 and thereafter, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was allowed by the trial Court but the same order was set aside by the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1768 of 2009 on 11.11.2009. It was further argued that Sarpanch, members Panchayat and other relatives of both the parties have intervened in the matter and by their best efforts a compromise have been effected between both the parties. Complainant-Balwinder Singh has settled the disputes and compromised the matter. Normally, this Court would not have quashed an FIR under Section 376 IPC on the basis of compromise. However, it is pointed out that complainant-Balwinder Singh, father of the prosecutrix wants to solemnize the marriage of his daughter. The pendency of the present proceedings are coming in the way of the finalization of the matrimonial alliances. Even otherwise, other accused in the FIR, namely, Brahmjit Singh and Manjit Kaur have already been found innocent by the Investigating Officer. The order, vide which, the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C was allowed by the trial Court, has been set aside by the High Court vide order dated 11.11.2009 passed in CRR No. 1768 of 2009. In view of the above as also from the perusal of the FIR, it is doubtful as to whether it is a case of rape or 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 CRM No. M 13546 of 2010 3 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 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.” 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 CRM No. M 13546 of 2010 4 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 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 CRM No. M 13546 of 2010 5 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 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 CRM No. M 13546 of 2010 6 while cutting short the prosecution in such like cases. The facts appear to be different in the present case Quashing of the said FIR in the facts of the present case will rather secure the ends of justice because in case the trial is allowed to be continued, the prosecutrix will have to make various visits to the Court. The same may also come in her way in settling down in her life. Her father- Balwinder Singh (Complainant) is standing by her side and concerned that his daughter should be allowed to move on in her life. In view of the foregoing discussion as well as taking into account the compromise, the affidavit filed by the complainant and the prosecutrix, continuation of the proceedings will not serve any useful purpose as the allegations are not being substantiated by the prosecutrix or the complainant. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.102 dated 28.08.2008 under Section 376, 342 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Bhogpur, District Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 15.12.2010 mohan