CRM No. M 8934 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 8934 of 2011 Date of decision: 31.05.2011 Gurmeet Kaur and others ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. KBS Mann, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR No. 101 dated 29.09.2009 under Section 376, 344, 506, 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 4, 5, 6 of the Child Marriage Act, Police Station Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda and all subsequent proceedings taken in pursuance thereof in view of the compromise dated 05.03.2011 (P2). On the complaint of respondent No. 3, who is father of respondent No. 2 (Parabhjot Kaur), the aforesaid FIR was registered against the present petitioners. Petitioner No. 5 is stated to be the husband of CRM No. M 8934 of 2011 2 respondent No. 2. Now, the matter has been compromised. The compromise deed dated 05.03.2011 has been placed on record as Annexure P2. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are present in Court along with the counsel. The aforesaid FIR was registered against the petitioners with the allegation that the daughter of respondent No. 3 was forcibly married against her wishes to petitioner No. 5. Respondents No. 2 and 3 have filed their respective affidavit, stating therein, that with the intervention of the relatives and respectable of the locality, the matter has been compromised and they do not want to take any action against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also brought to the notice of the Court that vide judgment dated 11.11.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Bathinda, the petition under Section 13 (2) (iv) of the Hindu Marriage Act has been allowed granting ex parte decree of divorce. Normally, this Court would not have exercised its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise involving such serious offence as in the present case. However, the facts in the present case are different. In the present case, FIR was registered by respondent No. 2 i.e. father of respondent No. 3. It is clear from the above that if at all, it was a case of marriage between the parties. The decree of divorce dated 11.11.2010 is a proof of the said fact as such, from the above, it appears that no offence under Section 376 IPC is made out. Complainant i.e. father of the girl and girl herself are present in Court and have filed their respective affidavits, stating therein, that they have no objection if the said FIR is quashed. CRM No. M 8934 of 2011 3 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 observed as under:- “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 reduced friction, then it truly is finest hour of justice. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the court exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.” The Apex Court in the case of 'Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:- “6. We need to emphasize 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 CRM No. M 8934 of 2011 4 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 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 CRM No. M 8934 of 2011 5 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.” In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 101 dated 29.09.2009 under Section 376, 344, 506, 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 4, 5, 6 of the Child Marriage Act, Police Station Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 31.05.2011 mohan CRM No. M 8934 of 2011 6