Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 940 (PNJ)

Rajesh Kumar @ Bablu v. State Of Punjab

2001-08-29

NIRMAL SINGH

body2001
Judgment Nirmal Singh, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 19 dated 31.1.2001 under Sections 363/366/34 IPC registered at Police Station B-Division, Amritsar. 2. Shri Harbhajan Singh-complainant, petitioner-Rajesh Kumar and Navjot Kaur daughter of the complainant are present in the Court. The complainant is identified by A.S.I. Harnam Singh, who is also Investigating Officer of this case. The complainant made a statement that he has no objection if the FIR No. 19 dated 31.1.2001 registered on his statement is quashed. The petitioner- Rajesh Kumar has married with his complainant daughter namely Navjot Kaur. 3. There is no provision of compounding an offence in non-compoundable offences in the Code of Criminal Procedure but in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, AIR 1977 SC 1489, their Lordship has held as under : "In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Courts inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realization of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its objects it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction." 4. In Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 1990(3) RCR 332, the accused were acquitted by the trial Court and were convicted by the High Court for the offence under Section 307 IPC, the Apex Court allowed the parties to compound the offence. 5. In Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 1990(3) RCR 332, the accused were acquitted by the trial Court and were convicted by the High Court for the offence under Section 307 IPC, the Apex Court allowed the parties to compound the offence. 5. In Saud and another v. State of Haryana, 1988(1) CCC 388, this Court allowed the compounding of the offence though the offence was not compoundable. Reliance can also be placed upon Y. Suresh Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, JT 1987(2) SC 361, Kailash and others v. State of Haryana, 1992(1) RCR 198, Chiranji Lal v. State of U.P., 1982(3) SCC 371, Bharat Singh v. State of M.P. and others, 1990 Suppl. SCC 62. 6. In view of these judicial proceedings, the High Court exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice can allow the parties to compound the offence. The petitioner who alleged to have kidnapped the daughter of the complainant has married with his daughter. The petitioner and the daughter of the complainant are living peacefully and enjoying their married life. The petitioner and his wife Navjot Kaur are major. Navjot Kaur has also made a statement that she is living peacefully with the petitioner. 7. Taking into consideration all these facts, it will be in the interest of the party and in the larger interest of the society if this FIR is quashed as the purpose of the law is to eradicate the litigation and not to keep the parties in litigation. 8. In view of the above discussion, this criminal miscellaneous petition is accepted and FIR No. 19, dated 31.1.2001 registered on the statement of Shri Harbhajan Singh under Section 363/366/34 IPC at Police Station B- Division, Amritsar, is quashed. Petition allowed.