IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-2501 of 2011 Date of Decision:19.5.2011 Shafique @ Tola and others .... Petitioners Versus State of UT, Chandigarh and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. M.K. Rampal, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Ashima Mor, Advocate for U.T. Chandigarh. Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 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.315 dated 14.9.2009 under Sections 363/366/376 IPC Police Station Manimajra, Chandigarh and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. Due to the intervention of the respectable of the area, the matter has been compromised. Compromised deed (Annexure P-2) has already been placed on record to this effect. The parties are present in the Court alongwith their respective counsel. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has placed on record the affidavits of respondent No.2 as well as his daughter (prosecutrix) authenticating the compromise. It is submitted in the said affidavits that the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties due to the intervention of the respectables of the CRM M-2501 of 2011 -2- parties and for the better future and life of the daughter of respondent No.2 and petitioner No.3 as they are of young age and have bright future. It is further stated that the marriage of daughter of respondent No.2 is fixed for 30.5.2011 and continuation of present case can affect the future of daughter of respondent No.2. As such, they have no objection, if the FIR in question is quashed. 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 into acute hardship or misuse of the process of law and may even lead to injustice, causing irreparable loss to the victim or the aggrieved party. 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 CRM M-2501 of 2011 -3- 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 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.” 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 CRM M-2501 of 2011 -4- 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 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 CRM M-2501 of 2011 -5- 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 is observed, the marriage of the prosecutrix is fixed. The continuation of the proceedings will come in th way of the happy matrimonial life and a better future. The compromise will help her to overcome the trauma and move on in life. Her father who is the complainant is rather standing by her side in her decision. Thus, taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties and the affidavits of respondent No.2 and his daughter (prosecutrix) stating that they have no objection if the FIR is quashed, it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section CRM M-2501 of 2011 -6- 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.315 dated 14.9.2009 under Sections 363/366/376 IPC Police Station Manimajra, Chandigarh and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 19.5.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE