1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. 27973-M of 2009
Date of Decision: 7.10.2009
***
Ajay Singh
.. Petitioner
Vs.
Union Territory, Chandigarh & Anr.
.. Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
Present:- Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate
for petitioner.
***
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
Heard. Notice of motion.
Ms. Ashima Mor, Advocate for Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate
has accepted notice for UT Chandigarh, while respondent No.2 who is
present in person and identified by counsel for the petitioner, accepts notice.
Through the instant petition quashing of FIR No. 12 dated
13.1.2009, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, registered at P.S. Sector 11,
Chandigarh and consequent proceedings have been sought, on the basis of
compromise entered between the parties.
The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 Amar Nath
got lodged the impugned FIR against the petitioner with the allegations that
on 12.1.2009 he enticed away her minor daughter on the false promises.
Thus, legal action against him was sought.
After the registration of the FIR, investigation in the case was
carried out. The girl was recovered and the petitioner and girl were
medicolegally examined. On completion of the investigation, final report
against the accused was presented in the Court, where he was charge
sheeted and it has been pointed out by learned counsel appearing for UT
Chandigarh that statement of prosecutrix has been recorded before the
Court.
Now what has developed in the matter is that, with the
2
intervention of Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court, the
petitioner and prosecutrix decided to marry each other. In this view of the
matter, petitioner was granted bail by this Court and now the Court has been
apprised that after solemnization of marriage, the couple is living happily
and the said marriage has also endorsed by the complainant i.e. father of the
prosecutrix. Respondent No.2, who is present in the Court has also
reiterated the stand and has asserted no objection to the quashing of the FIR.
Now on these broad facts, the quashing of the FIR has been
sought. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in
fact the petitioner and prosecutrix have love affair with each other and the
complainant who was not satisfied with this relation, got the impugned FIR
lodged, but now he is also recognizing the marriage. It has further been
contended that in case the learned trial court passes any adverse order
against the petitioner, in that eventuality, the whole exercise would resulted
into naught.
By now it is fully settled that the High Court in exercise of
inherent powers can quash the proceedings if it finds that allowing of any
such proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court or
that ends of justice require that the proceedings be quashed. In the case of
State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswami, AIR 1977 SC 1489, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed that the ends of justice are higher than ends of
mere law, though justice has got to be administered according to the laws
made by the legislature yet the Court proceeding ought not to be permitted
to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution.
In the case of Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya
and others 1980(1) SCC 63, the essence of compromise has been summed
up in following words:-
” The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when
parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave
a sense of fellowship of reunion.”
In the instant case, as emerges from record, the petitioner and
prosecutrix have married each other and this appreciated step shall gives
them a new social status in the society. Keeping in view the peculiar facts of
the case, is of the considered view that continuance of such a prosecution is
3
nothing but an exercise in futility and sheer wastage of time of Court.
Therefore, considering the aspect of settlement having arrived at between
the parties, it is a fit case where interference of this Court in exercise of its
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out.
Therefore, in view of the discussion made above, the instant
petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned FIR and all other consequent
proceedings thereto, are quashed. However, it is made clear that this order
cannot be taken as a precedent and has been passed keeping in view the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
(ARVIND KUMAR)
JUDGE
October 7, 2009
Jiten