IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-37558 of 2010 Date of Decision:28.3.2011 Anil Rana @ Chani .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Brar, A.A.G. Punjab. Mr. Amit Kohar, 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.114 dated 9.9.2010 under Section 376 IPC Police Station Division No.4, Ludhiana City 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. However, the matter has been compromised due to the intervention of the respectables of the family. Compromise deed (Annexure P-3) has also been placed on record in this regard. The parties are present in the Court along with their respective counsel. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has placed on record the the affidavit of respondent No.2 admitting the factum of compromise. As per the said affidavit, respondent No.2 has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. CRM M-37558 of 2010 -2- 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 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 into acute hardship or misuse of the process of law and may even lead to injustice, causing irreparable loss to the victim or the aggrieved party. Moreover, the petitioner has also filed petition i.e. Crl. M. No.28072-M of 2010 for grant of anticipatory bail in the present FIR, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 25.11.2010 wherein it was observed as under: “It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that even from the allegations in the FIR, it was apparent that the prosecutrix was the consenting party. It was further argued that it is a well settled proposition of law that Section 376 IPC was not attracted just because a promise is made by the accused to marry. Reliance was also placed on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case titled as Uday v. State of Karnatka reported as 2003 (2) RCR (Criminal) 99 and S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal reported as 2010 (2) CRC (Criminal) 793 to substantiate his arguments. Accordingly, notice of motion was issued and the interim bail was granted. Even as per the allegations in the FIR, the complainant was having an affair with Accused No.1-Anil CRM M-37558 of 2010 -3- Rana i.e. the present petitioner since the year 2008. It is not disputed that she is major and there were talks of the marriage between them and engagement had also taken place. It is settled proposition of law as per the judgments, referred to above, that offence punishable under Section 376 IPC cannot be said to be made out just because the accused had promised to marry the complainant at some stage. From the allegations in the FIR, it appears to be a case of consent. Today, learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Baldev Singh, states that the petitioner has since joined the investigation. In view of the above, the order dated 23.9.2010 passed by this Court is made absolute.” At this stage, the compromise arrived at between the parties in the present case strengthens the order passed in Crl. M. No.28072-M of 2010 on 25.11.2010 vide which the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail. 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 CRM M-37558 of 2010 -4- 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 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 CRM M-37558 of 2010 -5- 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 affidavit of respondent No.2 stating that she has 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. Besides, as already noticed, the contents of the FIR does not constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC. It was a case of consent. The girl was a major and she was aware of what she was doing. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.114 dated 9.9.2010 under Section 376 IPC Police Station Division No.4, Ludhiana City and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 28.3.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE