Crl. Misc. No. M-29459 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-29459 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 03.06.2011 Rajinder Singh ......Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. B.S Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Sh. Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab for respondent No. 1-State **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.114 dated 06.06.2009 under Sections 366/376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the Code'), registered at Police Station Mehta, District Amritsar (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3). Brief facts of the case are that the above FIR was registered Crl. Misc. No. M-29459 of 2010 (O&M) -2- at the instance of respondent No. 2. As per FIR, on 02.06.2009, at about 6 P.M, the complainant was present at his house and Rajinder Singh told her that he would marry with her and asked her accompany him. She agreed to do so. The petitioner first took her to Matka Chowk and then took her in bus to the house of his aunt where he kept upto 05.06.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner raped her there without her consent. On 05.06.2009, Rajinder Singh had gone out somewhere and he secretly slipped from there and reached the home of the complainant and told the whole incident to her parents. Rajinder Singh in the garb of marrying the complainant abducted and raped her without her consent. In the above background, FIR was registered against the petitioner. In compliance of the order dated 18.03.2011, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court for recording of their statements. Report of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baba Bakala has been received. As per report, statement of the parties have been recorded and they have been identified by Amrik Singh Lumbardar. All the above said persons have specifically stated that a compromise has been arrived between the parties with the intervention of the respectable of the village and now they are living peacefully with their respective families. As per statement of Sunita, compromise has been Crl. Misc. No. M-29459 of 2010 (O&M) -3- arrived between the parties with the intervention of the respectables of the village. She and accused are neighbours and belong to the same village Udho Nangal. She is now married and residing happily with her in-laws at Shilong (Assam). She has no grudge against the accused and do not want to proceed further with the present case. Statement of Rajinder is also to the same effect that the compromise has been effected. Statement of Amrik Singh Lumberdar has been recorded to the same effect. However, offence under Section 376 IPC is not compoundable but keeping in view the peculiar facts of the present case that since the prosecutrix has since been married and living peacefully with the petitioner, it would an exercise in futile to continue with the further proceedings against the petitioner. In view of the statement made by the respondents that the compromise has been effected between the parties, the offence under Section 376 IPC is hereby compounded. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-29459 of 2010 (O&M) -4- 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-29459 of 2010 (O&M) -5- 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.” 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-29459 of 2010 (O&M) -6- 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 status report, compromise effected between the parties and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases 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.114 dated 06.06.2009 under Sections 366/376 of the Code, registered at Police Station Mehta, District Amritsar (Annexure P-1), is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. However, liberty is granted to respondent No. 2 to review the same if petitioner do any such act again. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. June 03, 2011 (RITU BAHRI) G.Arora JUDGE