Crl. Misc. No. M-1650 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-1650 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 21.3.2011 Ravi .......... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents ***** Crl. Misc. No. M-6997 of 2011 (O&M) Kalu Singh & others .......... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents ****** CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present : Mr. A.K. Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Parvesh Sachdeva, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** RITU BAHRI, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Crl. Misc. No. M-1650 of 2011 -2- for quashing of FIR No. 130 dated 19.11.2010 under Sections 363- A, 366, 354, 342, 506, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Bahavwala, Tehsil Abohar, District Ferozepur (Annexure P-4) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). Brief facts of the case are that, both the petitioner and respondent No.2 were major, they solemnized their marriage on 20.12.2010 in Arya Samaj Indira Gandhi Nahar Priyojna, Lalgarh, Bikaner (Rajasthan) according to Hindu rites and ceremonies with their free will and without any kind of pressure against the wishes of the parents of respondent No.2 in presence of the relatives and friends of the petitioner. The marriage certificate dated 20.12.2010 is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2. After solemnization of their marriage, they were receiving threats from the parents of respondent No.2. The petitioner and respondent No.2 jointly filed Criminal Misc. No. 38297 of 2010 titled as Kiran Bala and another Vs. State of Punjab & others for protection of their life and liberty. On 24.12.2010, this Court had given direction to the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur to look into the representation filed by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the complainant / respondent No.2 submits that she is residing with her parents. She had signed some blank papers. FIR was got lodged by the father of respondent No.2 against the petitioner and other family members. Quashing of this FIR is sought on the ground that respondent No.2 has happily married and is residing with the petitioner. Her affidavit dated Crl. Misc. No. M-1650 of 2011 -3- 18.1.2011 is annexed as Annexure P-5. It is submitted that it is an inter-caste marriage and they were compelled to approach this Court for protection of life and liberty. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. and another 2006(6) J.T. 173, has been pleased to lay down as under :- “......that the caste system is a curse on the nation and needs to be destroyed for better. Inter caste marriages are in the national interest. Acts of violence and threats against such inter caste couples are wholly illegal and those who commit them should be severely punished. Administration and Police Authorities all over the Country directed to ensure that no inter caste couple is harassed by any one or subjected to any threat or facts of violence.” In view of the above factum, the FIR was got registered by respondent No.2. She has filed an affidavit in the Court today. She is present in the Court. She has been duly identified by her counsel. In her affidavit, she has stated that her husband belongs to Rajput caste whereas the family of respondent No.2 belongs to Ghumiar Bagri Caste. After the solemnization of the marriage, she is residing happily with the petitioner. She has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. Broad guidelines have been laid down by the Full Bench Crl. Misc. No. M-1650 of 2011 -4- 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-1650 of 2011 -5- 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 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.” The ratio of the Full Bench judgment is a special reference has been made to the offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide where the victim dies in the course of transaction would fall in the category where compounding may not be permitted. Heinous offences like highway robbery, dacoity or a case involving clear-cut allegations of rape should also fall in the prohibited category. However, the offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide may be permitted to be compounded when the Court is in the position to record a finding that the settlement between the parties is voluntary and fair. The Crl. Misc. No. M-1650 of 2011 -6- Court must examine the cases of weaker and vulnerable victims with necessary caution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(2) R.C.R. (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 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 a re, cannot afford.” This Court in the case of Parambir Singh Gill Vs. Malkiat Kaur 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 256, has been pleased to lay down as under :- “Criminal Procedure Code, Section 320- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sections 3 and 4- Non Compoundable offence- of the seven accused, complainant entering into compromise with one accused- Proceedings qua one accused only quashed by High Crl. Misc. No. M-1650 of 2011 -7- Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.” Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (supra), Parambir Singh Gill Vs. Malkiat Kaur (supra) and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), FIR No. 130 dated 19.11.2010 under Sections 363-A, 366, 354, 342, 506, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Bahavwala, Tehsil Abohar, District Ferozepur (Annexure P-4) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise is quashed qua petitioners. The petitions stand disposed of. 21.3.2011 (RITU BAHRI) 'sp' JUDGE