1 CRM M 36774 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 36774 of 2010 Date of decision: 10.02.2011 Kuljit Singh and others ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. A S Manaise, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. J S Brar, AAG, Punjab for the respondent State Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Advocate for the complainant -.- 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. 94 dated 20.09.2009 under Sections 376, 420, 467, 468, 471, 342, 328, 506, 149 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Kahnuwan, District Gurdaspur (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise entered into between the petitioners and respondent No. 2 - Amandeep Kaur (complainant). 2 CRM M 36774 of 2010 That the factual matrix of the present case is that respondent No.2 got registered the aforesaid FIR against the present petitioners, alleging therein, that on 13.05.2009, the petitioners took her from her house by misleading her and after taking her to Chandigarh, forcibly married her to petitioner No. 5 - Ajit Singh, where after, she resided with petitioner No. 5 in a rented accommodation at Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Patiala. That facts as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner and as mentioned in para 4 of the petition itself shows that it is a case of runaway marriage, where petitioner No. 5 and complainant respondent No. 2 had performed inter-caste marriage against the wishes of the parents of respondents No. 2. Being aggrieved by the threat to their life at the hands of the family members of respondent No.2, they had also approached this Hon’ble Court vide Criminal Miscellaneous M 13690 of 2009 seeking protection of their life and liberty. The aforesaid petition was disposed of vide order dated 18.05.2009 (P3) with direction to the SSP, Gurdaspur. Thereafter, petitioner No. 5 Ajit Singh and respondent No. 2 started residing in a rented accommodation at Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Patiala and lived there as husband and wife for more than three months, during which respondent No. 2 got pregnant. However, later on due to misunderstanding between the parties, respondent No. 2 got lodged the aforesaid FIR against the present petitioners. The parties are present in the Court along with their respective counsel. Normally, this Court would not have entertained the petition for quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise involving such a serious offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. But it is a fit case, where this 3 CRM M 36774 of 2010 Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the FIR while taking into account the fact that respondent No. 2 earlier along with petitioner No. 5 had jointly filed CRM M 13690 of 2009 seeking protection to their life and liberty. It is also evident that she had willingly gone with petitioner No. 5. She is a major. Thus, no offence under Section 376 IPC is made out against petitioner No.5 or other petitioners. A perusal of the FIR clearly shows that there is no force used on respondent No.2. She willingly left with petitioner No.5 and others. The incident is of 13.05.2009 and according to the FIR, she escaped on 26.08.2009. However, she has lodged the present FIR after one month on 20.09.2009. 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 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 4 CRM M 36774 of 2010 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 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 5 CRM M 36774 of 2010 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 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 6 CRM M 36774 of 2010 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 CRM No. M 13715 of 2010 7 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.” From the above facts, it appears that both i.e. petitioner No. 5 and respondent No. 2 ran away from home but subsequently respondent No. 2 returned back to her parents’ home for one reasons or the other and got registered the present FIR.If at all, it is case of consent and no offence under 7 CRM M 36774 of 2010 Section 376 IPC is made out. Even, as per the affidavit filed by respondent No.2, good sense has prevailed upon the parties and she does not want to take any legal action against the accused persons. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 94 dated 20.09.2009 under Sections 376, 420, 467, 468, 471, 342, 328, 506, 149 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Kahnuwan, District Gurdaspur (Annexure P-1) with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 10.02.2011 mohan