CRM No. M 2555 of 2010 1 v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Judgment

2. 3. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? To be referred to the Reporter or not? Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 42 dated 18.10.2009 under Sections 376, 511, 506, 323, 34 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Kotli Surat Mali, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur, Punjab (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise entered into between the petitioners and respondent No. 2-Baljeet Kaur (complainant). As per the case put forward by the prosecution, a fight took place between two brothers, namely, Bajinder Singh, husband of the complainant (Respondent No. 2) and Salwinder Singh (Petitioner No. 1) while they were taking liquor on Diwali. Complainant-Baljeet Kaur is real CRM No. M 2555 of 2010 2 sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of Salwinder Singh. The said Salwinder Singh accompanying by other petitioners indulged in a free fight with respondents, in which, the said incident is stated to have occurred. After the registration of the case, the matter is said to have been compromised on

20.01.2010. An affidavit of Baljeet Kaur-complainant has been filed as Annexure P-4. In para 4 of the aforesaid affidavit, it is stated that:- “4. that no such incident as mentioned in the FIR has taken place. The persons mentioned as accused in the FIR, did not misbehave with the deponent nor they tried to commit rape upon the deponent.” A short reply dated 04.03.2010 by way of affidavit of Baljeet Kaur has also been filed in Court today. The same is taken on record. Para 5 of the aforesaid reply reads as under:- “5. That the deponent earlier also appeared before this Hon'ble Court at the time of hearing of anticipatory bail petition filed by petitioners No. 3 and 4 and tendered affidavit dated 19.11.2009 (P-4) to the effect that no such incident has taken place.” Complainant-Baljeet Kaur wife of Baljinder Singh also appeared in this Court today and made the following statement separately:- “The matter has been compromised. However, whatever is written in the FIR has not been stated by me and the said incident did not occur. Therefore, I do not wish to pursue the FIR against the petitioner, who is my brother-in-law. I am happily residing with my husband and rest of the family including brother-in-law. I am making the said statement without any pressure and out of my own sweet will. I have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. CRM No. M 2555 of 2010 3 Whatever be the reason for registering the FIR, one thing is evident that petitioner No. 1 (Salwinder Singh) and complainant(Baljeet Kaur) are closely related. A free fight took place between the petitioners and respondent. Even from the reading of the allegations in the FIR, it is doubtful whether an offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code is made out. At the most, the aforesaid offence falls under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code. Even otherwise, as per the affidavit (P-4) as well as the statement of the complainant before this Court, the consistent stand of the complainant is that the said incident did not occur. In fact, it was stated by her before this Court that whatever is written in the FIR has not been stated by her and therefore, she does not wish to pursue the FIR against the petitioners. It is further stated that she has no objection if the aforesaid FIR is quashed. The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. 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 CRM No. M 2555 of 2010 4 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 vs. 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.” Normally, this Court would not exercise the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise involving such serious offence as in the present case. This Court in the case of Sawinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and Others (CRM M 1455 of 2010, decided on 20.04.2010), while accepting the compromise,made a note of the fact that:- “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 CRM No. M 2555 of 2010 5 facts. In fact, it should immediately invite the attention of the Court. Otherwise, the same may result in acute hardship or misuse of the process of law and may result in injustice, causing irreparable loss to the victim or the aggrieved party.” Quashing in the present case is at the instance of the victim herself. She is residing happily with her husband and other family members including petitioner No. 1-brother-in-law. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the complainant herself consistently stated in her statement as well as affidavit before this Court that no such incident has ever occurred. Moreover, the complainant and petitioners are closely related. Allowing the proceedings to continue in the given facts will not serve any purpose as there appears to be no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution in the facts as the present case. Learned Single Bench of this Court, while accepting the compromise under same offence in the case of Surinder Kamboj and others vs State of Punjab and another reported in 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 21, held as under :- “9. Normally courts may be reluctant to cut short prosecution in such like cases and quash FIR on the basis of compromise, but this case appears to be different and strange in nature. The prosecutrix apparently has blown hot and cold at different stages of the case. She first approached Human Rights Commission but then withdrew her complaint when it was found not substantiated on enquiry. She then approached this Court for proper enquiry into the FIR but again made a somersault by moving application for withdrawing her petition at subsequent stage. She seems CRM No. M 2555 of 2010 6 to be somewhat consistent now and does not wish to prosecute this FIR registered at her instance. This matter was enquired into under the directions of Human Rights Commission. This independent probe has revealed that the allegations are not substantiated. It appears that the prosecutrix has been playing into the hands of some persons and has been used as pawn in some political game. This perhaps is the only explanation for her changing stances at different stages of the pendency of this case. The fact remains that now the prosecutrix is no more interested in prosecuting this FIR against the petitioners. The proceedings against the petitioners would thus appear to be an abuse of process of Court.

10. xxx xxx xxx xxx

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.” This Court, in the case of Talwinder Singh @ Laddu vs. State of Punjab reported in 2008(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 970, was pleased to quash the FIR under similar offence and nature i.e. under Section 376 IPC and held as under :- “6. Keeping in view the enunciation of law as referred to above and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case, once the matter has been compromised between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the prosecution. Accordingly, FIR No.33 dated 15.02.2008 registered under Sections 363, 342, 366, 376 and 120-B IPC at Police Station, Islamabad, Amritsar and all CRM No. M 2555 of 2010 7 subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.” As stated above, normally, the Courts should exercise restrain while cutting short the prosecution in such like cases. However, the facts appear to be different in the present case. The allegations in the FIR do not constitute an offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. If at all, the same falls under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code. The matter has not only been compromised but as per the stand taken by the complainant in her affidavit as well as in the Statement made before this Court, no such incident has occurred. The parties are closely related. Petitioner No. 1 is the real brother-in-law of the complainant. They are residing together in the same home. In view of these facts, there is no impediment in the way of the Court to quash the FIR. Continuation of the proceedings will not serve any useful purpose as the allegations are not being substantiated by the complainant in her statement before this Court. She is a matured and married women and is aware of what she is stating. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 42 dated 18.10.2009 under Sections 376, 511, 506, 323, 34 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Kotli Surat Mali, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur, Punjab (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the interest of justice.

06.07.2010 (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge