Crl. Misc. No. M-14861 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-14861 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision :23.05.2011 KesarSingh .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. H.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner/complainant. Sh. Guninder S. Brar, A.A.G., Punjab for respondent No. 1 -State Mr. Ajay Mehra, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed by the complainant itself under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of F.I.R No. 81 dated 26.04.2011, under Sections 363, 366 (A), 506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali Nabha, District Patiala(Annexure P1) and all subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P2). Brief facts of the case are that the above said FIR was registered by the complainant against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on the ground that petitioner No. 3 had forcibly took away the daughter of the complainant whose age is 16 years and who is little mentally upset. However, during the pendency of investigation, petitioner No. 3 and Parbinder Kaur (daughter of the complainant) through father and Crl. Misc. No. M-14861 of 2011 (O&M) -2- guardian Kesar Singh arrived at a compromise on the ground that both petitioner No. 3 and Parbinder Kaur were known to each other since long and were used to visit each other. However, with the intervention of respectables of both the parties, the matter has been compromised. It has been settled that both the parties have love and affection for each other and Sukhwinder Singh and Parbinder Kaur would get the marriage solemnized as per Hindu Law on their attaining majority and parents of both the families have expressed their consent for the same as Parbinder Kaur is pregnant from Sukhvinder Singh. It was further alleged that as the girl is pregnant, her family has taken her to their home with the consent of the parents of Sukhvinder Singh. It was further settled between the parties that after marriage, father of the boy will take care of the girl and shall nourish the child to be born. The matter has been compromised in the presence of Panchayat without any pressure on anybody and it has been settled that both the parties shall approach this Court for cancellation of the FIR. Compromise is Annexure P2. Counsel for petitioner has also filed his affidavit in court today and has stated that he has no objection if the FIR is quashed against respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 has put in appearance and has made a statement that the matter has been duly compromised. 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 (Cr l.) 1052 for quashing the prosecution when parties entered into compromise. The Full Bench has observed that this Crl. Misc. No. M-14861 of 2011 (O&M) -3- 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-14861 of 2011 (O&M) -4- 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 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), F.I.R No. 81 Crl. Misc. No. M-14861 of 2011 (O&M) -5- dated 26.04.2011, under Sections 363, 366 (A), 506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali Nabha, District Patiala(Annexure P1) is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua respondent Nos. 2 to 4 The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 23, 2011 G.Arora