IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-22320 of 2010 Date of decision : 30.9.2010 Jameel Hassan Faiji and another …. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ….. Respondents Present : Mr. PKS Phoolka, Advocate for the petitioners with Petitioner No.2-Jawahar Singh. Mr. VPS Sidhu, AAG, Punjab with SI Tajinder Kapil, Police Station GRP, Bathinda. Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Advocate for the complainant with Ms. Sarabjeet Kaur (respondent No.2). *** S.S. SARON, J. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted the original panchayati compromise along with the affidavit of Ms. Sarabjeet Kaur (respondent No.2) in Court today. The same are taken on record. Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Advocate has put in appearance with Ms. Sarabjeet Kaur (respondent No.2) and he identifies her in Court. SI Tajinder Kapil, Police Station GRP, Bathinda also identifies respondent No.2. The Vakalatnama filed by Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Advocate on behalf of the complainant/respondent No.2 in Court today is taken on record. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.12 dated 1.3.2010 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station GRP, Bathinda for the offences under Sections 186 and 354 IPC. Crl. Misc. No. M-22320 of 2010 [2] The FIR (Annexure P1) in the case has been registered on the statement of Ms. Sarabjeet Kaur (respondent No.2). It is alleged by her that she was posted as Ticket Collector in the railway department at Railway Station, Bathinda. On 1.3.2010, her duty was from 6.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. at Railway Station, Bathinda on inquiry counter. At about 1.30 p.m. when she came out after opening the door of inquiry counter to go to toilet, then the petitioners were standing at the door of the store room built in the inquiry office. They both pulled the complainant inside the store room from her arms and locked the door from inside and started molesting her. She raised a noise ‘bachao bachao’. In the meantime, the Bench Incharge Madam Virpal Kaur, Ticket Collector, Railway Department, Bathinda came inside the store room after opening the door and rescued the complainant/respondent No.2 from the petitioners. Both the petitioners had stopped the complainant/respondent No.2 from doing her duty and had outraged her modesty. The charge in the case has not so far been filed. The parties have amicably settled the matter. Learned State counsel on instructions from SI Tajinder Kapil, Police Station GRP, Bathinda has submitted that the offence under Section 186 IPC has been dropped. The petitioners are being prosecuted for the offence under Section 354 IPC only. In terms of the reply filed by Mr. Ashwani Kumar, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, GRP Ferozepur on behalf of respondent No.1, it is stated that a compromise has been effected between the parties regarding which the deponent, however, has no knowledge. Respondent No.2, who is present in Court and identified by her counsel Mr. Ashutosh Gupta and also by SI Crl. Misc. No. M-22320 of 2010 [3] Tajinder Kapil, Police Station GRP, Bathinda has submitted that she has compromised the matter with the petitioners with her own free will and desire. It is submitted that the entire incident had occurred due to some misunderstanding and she does not want to pursue the case. She (respondent No.2) has stated that she is making her statement of her own free will and desire and without any kind of pressure or undue influence of anyone. She has admitted her signatures on the affidavit dated 30.7.2010 and also on the panchayati compromise. It is stated by respondent No.2 that she is unmarried. Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the complainant/respondent No.2 has compromised the matter; besides, the fact that she is unmarried and keeping in view her future prospects as also the fact that she has on her own stated that the incident had occurred due to some misunderstanding, it would be just and expedient to quash the FIR (Annexure P1). In Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 582 it was observed by the Supreme Court as follows:- We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where by 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 the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This Crl. Misc. No. M-22320 of 2010 [4] is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law. Besides, a five Judges Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 has observed as follows:- “ 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) of the CrPC, or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the CrPC. 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 CrPC is sued 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 in a matrimonial discord, Crl. Misc. No. M-22320 of 2010 [5] landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC 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”. In view of the above, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No.12 dated 01.3.2010 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station GRP, Bathinda for the offences under Sections 186 and 354 IPC and all subsequent and consequential proceedings arising therefrom shall stand quashed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE September 30, 2010 amit