Crl. Misc. No.M-13560 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-13560 of 2011 Date of Decision: 16.05.2011 Arveena Kaur @ Raveena and another ..... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. H.S. Dhindsa, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Bhullar, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate, for respondent No.4. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.84 dated 25.03.2011 registered at Police Station Payal under Sections 364-A/420 IPC. Maggar Singh respondent No.4, who is present in Court, is father of Amrit Pal – petitioner No.2 and father-in-law of Arveena Kaur @ Raveena – petitioner No.1. Maggar Singh – respondent No.4 had lodged the abovesaid FIR. In the FIR it has been stated that elder son of the complainant was living in Canada whereas younger son – petitioner No.2 was living in Kurukshetra. On 17.03.211, respondent No.4 complainant had given Rs.40,000/- to his son Amrit Pal – petitioner No.2 accused. A Crl. Misc. No.M-13560 of 2011 -2- telephone was received from unknown girl stating that the son of the petitioner had been kidnapped and Rs.10 lacs were demanded as ransom. Later on the lady who made alleged telephonic call was found to be none- else but daughter-in-law of respondent No.4. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have performed their marriage against the wishes of complainant – respondent No.4. It is stated that later on complainant had reconciled to the marriage and the continuation of abovesaid FIR is an impediment in resumption of cordial relations between the parties. It is further stated that petitioners have been blessed with a son namely Kunaldeep Singh who is now aged about one year. It is further stated that complainant – respondent No.4 being grand father also intend to live in the company of his grand son. I have heard counsel for the parties. Performance of inter-caste marriage had led to registration of the impugned FIR. Now better sense has prevailed between accused son and father complainant – respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 has also filed reply wherein it is stated that FIR was lodged due to some misunderstandings. Taking into consideration larger interest and the fact that continuation of proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR may disturb the social harmony, present petition deserves to be accepted. A Full Bench of this Court in 'Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another', 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, compromise can always be taken into consideration to quash the FIR where the proceedings arising out of it are abuse and misuse under the process of law. Crl. Misc. No.M-13560 of 2011 -3- Hence, the present petition is accepted and the impugned FIR No.84 dated 25.03.2011 registered at Police Station Payal under Sections 364-A/420 IPC along with all consequential proceedings is quashed. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 16.05.2011 JUDGE manju