Crl. Misc. No. M- 13442 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 13442 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 23, 2010 Sandeep Singh ........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ........Respondents ******* CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. P.L. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.P. Bhinder, Senior Addl. A.G. Punjab with Mr. J.S. Sandhu, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Malkiat Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 in person. SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.81 dated 17.8.2009 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 354,342,506 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') (Sections 376/366-A IPC added lateron), registered at Police Station Quila Lal Singh, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur and criminal proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 27.12.2009 and affidavit dated 26.4.2010 (Annexures P-2 & P-3). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that now with the intervention of Village Panchayat and respectables of the Area a Crl. Misc. No. M- 13442 of 2010 (O&M) 2 compromise has been effected between the parties. Petitioner is aged about 19 years. Respondent No.2, who is present in person along with her counsel, has stated that now she has got married with Harjeet Singh and is residing in her matrimonial home. The pendency of the present case will effect her matrimonial life. She has forgiven the petitioner qua the offence committed by him and has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed. Respondent No.2 has further submitted that the matter was taken up before the Panchayat and a compromise was got effected between the parties. Respondent No.2 has also admitted the contents of her affidavit (Annexure P-3) and original affidavit has been placed on record. As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another JT 2008 (9) SC 192 in para Nos.26 and 24 has held as under :- “26. In the instant case, the disputes between the Company and the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromise arrived at by them whereunder the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not appear to have any further claim against the Company. What, however, remains is the fact that Crl. Misc. No. M- 13442 of 2010 (O&M) 3 certain documents were alleged to have been created by the appellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facts. The question which is required to be answered in this case is whether the power which independently lies with this Court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised? 24. On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of the Court in B.S. Joshi's case (supra) and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filled by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.” In normal circumstances, an FIR under Section 376 IPC is not quashed on the basis of the compromise as the offence under Section 376 IPC is not merely an offence against the individual but is an offence against the society at large. However, facts of each case are different. In the present case, the petitioner is a young boy aged about 19 years. Respondent No.2 complainant-prosecutrix is also a young girl aged about 19 years. Now respondent No.2 has got married and is residing happily in her matrimonial home. Respondent No.2 has stated that the continuation of the present case will adversely effect her matrimonial life. She has forgiven the petitioner Crl. Misc. No. M- 13442 of 2010 (O&M) 4 qua the offence committed by him and wants to move on in life. In these circumstances, it would be just and expedient to quash the criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise as the prosecutrix has forgiven the petitioner and wants to move on in life. The pendency of the criminal proceedings will have an adverse effect on the matrimonial life of respondent No.2. Keeping in view the larger interest of justice in mind, this petition is allowed. The FIR No.81 dated 17.8.2009, under Sections 354,342,506 IPC (Sections 376/366-A IPC added lateron), registered at Police Station Quila Lal Singh, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur and consequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed. (SABINA) November 23, 2010 JUDGE Anand