Crl. Misc. No. M-29789 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-29789 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision : 12.5.2011 Sachin ......Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Jasminder Singh Thind, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Kshitij Sharma, AAG Haryana. Mr.Vishal Handa Advocate for respondent No.2. **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.121 dated 24.09.2010 under Section 366 of IPC, registered at Police Station Rewari Sadar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise, entered between the parties. Brief facts of the case are that Narender-complainant has registered the FIR to the effect that on 18.09.2010 his daughter-Sachina had left for her Rajkiya Girls College at 9.00 a.m and has not returned home as yet. He had received a phone call and message on 11.9.2010, threatening to abduct his daughter by Sachin son of Rajbir, village Radhai and Anil resident of Dhanraj, village Naglia Ranmokh and Roshni wife of Mahender Singh which belongs to a group. His daughter is in custody of these persons. In the above background, F.I.R was registered against the petitioner. Crl. Misc. No. M-29789 of 2010(O&M) 2 However, during the pendency of investigation, both the parties arrived at a compromise with the intervention of respectables and decided to end the matter and to live in peace and harmony. Now the complainant does not want to proceed with the above mentioned F.I.R. Counsel for the petitioner states that earlier Criminal Misc. No.M-28691 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner and his wife seeking protection of their lives and liberties. Vide order dated 28.09.2010, the respondent was restrained from interfering in the peaceful lives and liberties of the petitioner and his wife. The complainant-Narinder Singh is present in the Court who has been identified by his counsel. He has filed his affidavit in the Court and the same is taken on record. As per affidavit, his daughter performed marriage with her own wish and does not want to continue with the case. He has stated that he has no objection for quashing of the above said FIR. Broad guidelines have been laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 for quashing the prosecution when parties entered into compromise. The Full Bench has observed that this power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- “26. In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, (1980)1 SCC 63, Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the essence of compromise in the following words :- “The finest hour of justice arrived propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of Crl. Misc. No. M-29789 of 2010(O&M) 3 reunion.” 27. 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) if the Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 28. 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 emity and reduces 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 by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 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.” Crl. Misc. No. M-29789 of 2010(O&M) 4 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429 has examined a case where quashing was sought of an FIR under Section 406 IPC being non-compoundable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :- “1. No useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise – There was no possibility of conviction. 2 It is advisable that in the disputes where question involved is of purely personal nature and no public policy is involved – Court should ordinarily accept the compromise. 3. Keeping the matter alive with no possibility of conviction is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford.” Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (supra) and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), FIR No.121 dated 24.09.2010 under Section 366 of IPC, registered at Police Station Rewari Sadar is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 12, 2011 Savita