IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-17160 of 2009 Date of decision:March 11, 2010 Amit Kumar and others Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present: Ms. G.K. Mann, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Bhavna Gupta, DAG Punjab for the respondent – State Mr. M.K. Bhatnagar, Advocate for respondent No. 2 DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 63 dated 20.05.2009 registered at Police Station E Division, Amritsar City under Sections 363, 366, 120-B IPC on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-1) between the parties. The said FIR has been registered on the basis of complaint made by Madhu wife of late Sh. Nishachar Kumar, mother of Kajal who got married with Amit Kumar – petitioner no. 1. Amit Kumar and Kajal who are present in the Court brought to the notice of this Court that Crl. Misc. No. M-16252 of 2009 was filed and the following order was passed on 10.6.2009:- “ Counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have got married against the wishes of respondent No. 4 – Madhu, respondent No. 5 - Sunny, respondent No. 6 - Kewal Kumar and respondent No. 7 – Rakesh Gill, and there is threat Crl. Misc. No. M-17160 of 2009 2 to their life and liberty from them. He contends that the petitioners have already made a representation dated 24.5.2009 (Annexure P-5) before the respondent No. 2 Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, giving therein the details about the apprehension of the petitioners. He submits that they would be satisfied, if a direction be issued to respondent No. 2 to look into the matter and take appropriate steps in accordance with law. Without going into the merits of the case and the assertions as made by counsel for the petitioners, a direction is issued to respondent No. 2 – Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, to look into the representation dated 24.5.2009 (Annexure P-5), preferred by the petitioners and take necessary steps in accordance with law. The petition stands disputed of in above terms.” Notice of motion was issued on 8.7.2009 and during the pendency of the present petition, with the efforts of learned counsel for the parties and relations, the matter has been compromised between the parties. Respondent No. 2 – Madhu is present in the Court who has been identified by his counsel and has stated in the Court that she has no objection, if the present FIR is quashed, as the matter has been compromised with the petitioners and now she is satisfied that her daughter is residing peacefully in her matrimonial house and now she does not want to pursue the case. In view of the statement made by respondent No. 2, no purpose would be served if the case is tried, as per the compromise the Crl. Misc. No. M-17160 of 2009 3 respondent No. 2 will not support the case of the prosecution and it will merely be a sheer wastage of precious time of this Court. It has been observed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney vs. Mr. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, 1980(1) SCC 63 that “the finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when the parties, despite following apart bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.” Relying on the views adopted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the Five Judges Bench of this Court also observed in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR(Criminal) 1052, that compounding of offence which are not compoundable under Section 320(9) Cr.P.C. but parties entering into compromise, this Court has the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow compounding of non- compoundable offences and quash the prosecution where the Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The present one is a case covered by the views observed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the judgment mentioned above and, is therefore, a fit case to quash the FIR. In view of the above, FIR No. 63 dated 20.05.2009 registered at Police Station E Division, Amritsar City under Sections 363, 366, 120-B IPC and all subsequent proceedings arisen out of the same are quashed. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) 11.03.2010 JUDGE reena