IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-6275 of 2010 Date of Decision:24.9.2010 Karamjit @ Montee and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. N.K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Ms. Anita Sharma, 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.270 dated 29.12.2008 under Sections 406/498- A/506/420/120-B IPC and 376 IPC added later on Police Station City Khanna District Ludhiana and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The FIR in question was got registered by respondent No.2 on the allegation that she was married with the petitioner No.1 on 28.7.2008 and the parents of complainant spent handsome amount on the marriage of the complainant and petitioner No.1. It was further alleged that after the marriage, the petitioner No.1 and complainant cohabited as husband and wife but the petitioners have been harassing and torturing the complainant for bringing inadequate dowry and she was turned out from the matrimonial home on 28.8.2008. However, subsequently offence under Section 376 IPC CRM M-6275 of 2010 -2- was also added on the basis of application moved by the complainant. Petitioner No.1 is the husband of complainant and petitioners No.2 and 3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant. Petitioners No.4 and 5 are brother-in-law and sister of petitioner No.1. As per the facts of the present case, no offence under Section 376 IPC is made out as admittedly petitioner No.1 and complainant cohabited with each other as husband and wife and the marriage between them was solemnized on 28.7.2008. This Court in Crl. M. No.1674-M of 2010 titled as Ashwani Bhatia v. State of Haryana and another while relying on the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, Calcutta High Court and Bombay High Court rendered in the cases of Uday v. State of Karnataka reported in (2003) 1 C Cr LR (SC) at page 555, Shyamapada Tewari v. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Reported as 2008 (1) F.J.C.C. 169 and Sunil Vishnu Salve and another v. State of Maharashtra reported as 2006 Crl. L.J. 587 held as under: “Similarly, in the facts of the present case, it would be at the most a breach of trust or cheating but having lived together in a relationship after performing marriage with the consent of the girl who is a grown up lady, cannot be termed as rape.” Even otherwise the matter has been compromised between the parties before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre vide order dated 27.11.2009 passed in Mediation case No.185 of 2009 in Crl. M. No.12704- M of 2009. A copy of the said order has been placed on record. The parties are present in the Court through their respective CRM M-6275 of 2010 -3- counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant states that respondent No.2 has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed in view of the compromise having been arrived between the parties before Mediation and Conciliation Centre. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that in pursuance to the compromise entire amount payable to respondent No.2-complainant stands deposited before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre and respondent No.2-complainant is free to withdraw the said amount after quashing of the present FIR as agreed between the parties. 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 of law and to secure the ends of justice.” CRM M-6275 of 2010 -4- 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.” Taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre and respondent No.2 has no objection if the FIR is quashed as well as the fact that Section 376 IPC is in any case not made out in the facts of the present case, it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.270 dated 29.12.2008 under Sections 406/498-A/506/420/120-B IPC and 376 IPC added later on Police Station City Khanna District Ludhiana and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the peculiar facts of the present case. The fact that the present petition has been quashed in view of the compromise effected before Mediation and Conciliation Centre, let the amount deposited by the petitioners before the said Centre be released to respondent No.2-complainant forthwith. 24.9.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE