CRM No. M 703 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 703 of 2010 Date of decision: 16.11.2010 Nimmo and others ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Ms G K Mann, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. P S Paul, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State Mr. Kisan Verma, Advocate for respondent No. 2 -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.133 dated 26.06.2009 under Sections 372, 376, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Division No. 7, Ludhiana and the further proceedings arising out of the same on the basis of compromise dated 16.12.2009 arrived at between the parties. The said FIR was registered on the statement of respondent No. 2 - Sarita in the year 2009. It is stated in the FIR that she is aged 20 years CRM No. M 703 of 2010 2 and is the eldest of the five brothers and sisters. As per the FIR, the incident relates to the time when she was supposed to be 13-14 years. As such, the present FIR was registered after a considerable delay of six years. Now, the matter has been compromised between the parties vide compromise dated 16.12.2009, copy whereof is placed on record as Annexure P-2. Affidavit of Sarita is placed on record. As per the said affidavit, she wants to get married to one Sonu son of Shri Krishan Lal, resident of Mauli Jagran, near Manimajra, Chandigarh and therefore, she does not wish to pursue the present case and wants to lead a peaceful life. Affidavit of Savitri wife of Babu Ram stated to be Babu Lal in the FIR is also placed on record. The said Savitri is the mother of respondent No. 2. As per the affidavit, she has fixed the marriage of her daughter Sarita with Sonu as she is of marriageable age. It is further stated that she and her daughter want to finish the litigation before her daughter gets married as she does not want to carry the burden or stigma to the house of her in-laws. Respondent No.2 is also present in Court along with her mother. Her statement has been recorded in Court today. Even as per her statement, the matter has been compromised. She does not wish to pursue the case against the accused persons as she is getting married to one Sonu son of Krishan Lal. It is also stated that the compromise was entered into without any pressure and out of her own sweet will and she has no objection, if the said FIR is quashed. The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. 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 CRM No. M 703 of 2010 3 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.” In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. 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.” There is no doubt that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashing the FIR on the basis of compromise involving such serious offence CRM No. M 703 of 2010 4 as in the present case, should be exercised with restraint. At the same time, the compromise in an FIR involving such offences should not be thrown out or ignored without examining the facts. In fact, it should immediately invite the attention of the Court. Otherwise, the same may result in acute hardship or misuse of the process of law and may result in injustice, causing irreparable loss to the victim or the aggrieved party. Quashing herein is at the instance of victim herself. She wants to forget her past. Moreover, if her past comes to the fore, her marriage may break down. She may lose her respect and honour in the eyes of her in-laws and husband. For continuing the trial, she will have to make various visits to the Court. It is an offence which is degrading for the victim but bringing her to the Court will compromise her dignity and honour even in the eyes of her children. Her mother is standing by her side supporting her and equally concerned that she must be allowed to move on with her life. Learned Single Bench of this Court, while accepting the 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 CRM No. M 703 of 2010 5 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 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 CRM No. M 703 of 2010 6 IPC at Police Station, Islamabad, Amritsar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.” Taking into account the facts of the present case, the compromise, affidavits of respondent No. 2, her mother as well as the statement made by Respondent No. 2/complainant in Court today and taking into account that the pendency of the present FIR may come in the way of her marriage to be performed shortly, it would be in the interest of justice that the compromise is accepted and present FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are quashed. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.133 dated 26.06.2009 under Sections 372, 376, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Division No. 7, Ludhiana and all the subsequent proceedings arising out therefrom are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge November 16, 2010 mohan