IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-6466 of 2011 Date of Decision:18.4.2011 Harnek Singh @ Neki and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Rrahish, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Brar, A.A.G. Punjab. Mr. S.K. Biriwal, 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.32 dated 3.8.2008 under Sections 376/120-B/506 IPC Police Station Hambran, 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. Due to the intervention of the respectable of the area, the matter has been compromised. The parties are present in the Court alongwith their respective counsel. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has placed on record the affidavit of respondent No.2 authenticating the compromise. It is submitted in the said affidavit that respondent No.2 got married to the petitioner on 29.1.2009 with her free will. It is further stated that respondent No.2 is happily living with the petitioner i.e. her husband and out of this wedlock, CRM M-6466 of 2011 -2- one male child namely Arman was born on 16.4.2010. As per the said affidavit, respondents No.2 has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. No doubt Section 376 IPC has been added but it is a case of run away marriage and now the petitioner and respondent No.2 are living together as husband and wife. As such, Section 376 IPC does not survive. The step taken by the family members of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 by accepting their marriage is the best way to save their future lives and also live with respect and dignity in the society. Learned Single bench of this Court, while accepting the compromise under the same offence in the case of Surinder Kamboj and others v. State of Punjab and another reported in 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 21, held as under:- “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.” 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 CRM M-6466 of 2011 -3- 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 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 and the affidavits of respondents No.4 and 5 stating that they have no objection if the FIR is quashed, 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.32 dated 3.8.2008 under Sections 376/120-B/506 IPC Police Station Hambran, CRM M-6466 of 2011 -4- District Ludhiana and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 18.4.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE