IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-32118 of 2010 Date of Decision:18.11.2010 Manish Kumar @ Dalip Kumar .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. P.S. Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Munish Kumar, A.A.G. Punjab. Mr. A.P.S. Tung, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.66 dated 17.8.2010 under Sections 363,366,376 IPC Police Station Meharban, Tehsil and District Ludhiana and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. Brief facts of this case are that there was a love affair between the petitioner and respondent No.3. They had solemnized the marriage against the wishes of their parents on 9.8.2010. Thereafter, due to threat to their lives at the hands of the parents of respondent No.3, they ran away from their respective homes. Accordingly, FIR in question was got registered by respondent No.2. However, the matter has been compromised. The parties are present in person through their respective counsel. CRM M-32118 of 2010 -2- Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 has placed on record the affidavits of respondents No.2 and 3 authenticating the compromise. As per the affidavits, respondent No.2 and 3 have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. Respondent No.3 is major. She has a right to choose the person, she wishes to marry. She has married the petitioner out of her own free will. The complaint/FIR by respondent No.2 is, therefore, an abuse of the process of law. As per the facts of the present case no offence under Sections 363,366,376 IPC is made out against the present petitioner. Even otherwise, the matter has been compromised. The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. 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 prevent the abuse CRM M-32118 of 2010 -3- of law and to secure the ends of justice.” In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. 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.” Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.66 dated 17.8.2010 under Sections 363,366,376 IPC Police Station Meharban, Tehsil and District Ludhiana and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 18.11.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE