JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: - The contour of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that initially, in the wake of statement of complainant Aman alias Amandeep Kaur d/o Kashmir Singh (respondent No.2) (for brevity “the complainant”), a criminal case was registered against petitioners-accused, Samma son of Ram Masih and others, vide FIR No.67 dated 20.4.2014 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable u/ss 363, 365, 366, 376, 420, 465, 120-B IPC, Sections 3 & 4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 10 & 11 of The Prevention of Child Marriage Act, 2006 by the police of Police Station Dhariwal, District Gurdaspur. 2. During the course of investigation of the criminal case, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their disputes, by means of compromise deed dated 13.8.2014 (Annexure P-2). 3. Having compromised the matter, the petitioners-accused have preferred the present petition, to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia, pleading that the complainant, who was major at the relevant time, was having love affairs with Samma petitioner No.1. She wanted to marry him. They had sexual intercourse, she became pregnant and gave birth to a male child on 18.4.2014. Subsequently, they performed marriage voluntarily, without any pressure or coercion, by virtue of marriage certificate dated 3.5.2014 (Annexure P3). The other accused have also recognized their marriage. Now with the intervention of respectables and members panchayat of the village, the parties have amicably settled their dispute, vide indicated compromise deed (Annexure P2). The complainant is now peacefully residing with petitioner No.1 with their child in her matrimonial home. Every body is happy with their marriage. The parties have redressed their grievances and have no grudge against each other. The complainant has no objection in case, the criminal case registered against the petitioners, by way of impugned FIR is quashed. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, they sought to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto in the manner depicted here-in-above. 4. The complainant has no objection in case, the criminal case registered against the petitioners, by way of impugned FIR is quashed. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, they sought to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto in the manner depicted here-in-above. 4. During the course of preliminary hearing and taking into consideration the fact that the complainant is happily residing with petitioner No.1 in her matrimonial home, the trial Court was directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties, with regard to the genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise deed (Annexure P- 2) between them, by means of order dated 9.9.2014 by this Court. 5. In compliance thereof, the trial Court recorded the statement of complainant, which, in substance, is as under:- “Stated that a FIR No.67 dated 20.04.2014 under Sections 363, 365, 366, 376, 420, 465, 120-B IPC, Sections 3, 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 10, 11 of Prevention of Child Marriage Act, 2006, Police Station Dhariwal, District Gurdaspur (Punjab), was registered against the accused persons on the statement of Aman @ Amandeep Kaur. Kashmir Singh is the father of the complainant. Complainant Aman @ Amandeep Kaur is major and has voluntarily solemnized the marriage with Samma accused without any kind of pressure and a male child was born out of their wedlock. The complainant is happily resided with her husband Samma in her matrimonial home and we have amicably settled our dispute by means of compromise. Now with the intervention of respectables the matter has been compromised and we do not want to pursue with the present case. We have suffered this statement without any pressure or coercion. We have no objection if the present case FIR is quashed by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, on the basis of compromise.” 6. Similarly, the trial Court has also recorded the statements of all the concerned parties and reported, vide its report dated 27.10.2014, that the compromise is voluntarily, genuine and without any pressure or coercion. 7. We have no objection if the present case FIR is quashed by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, on the basis of compromise.” 6. Similarly, the trial Court has also recorded the statements of all the concerned parties and reported, vide its report dated 27.10.2014, that the compromise is voluntarily, genuine and without any pressure or coercion. 7. In this manner, once it stands proved on record that the complainant has performed the marriage and now she is residing with petitioner No.1 as his wife in her matrimonial home, then, no offence punishable u/s 376 IPC is made out against the accused, in view of ratio of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in cases Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi [2013(4) Law Herald (SC) 3217] : 2013(3) RCR (Criminal) 399, Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma [2014(1) Law Herald (SC) 80 : 2014(1) Law Herald (P&H) 698 (SC) : 2014(1) Marriage L.J. 420 (SC)] : 2014(1) RCR (Criminal) 179 and Lata Singh v. State of UP and another 2006(5) SCC 475 . Therefore, the parties are well within their legal right to settle the matter on the basis of compromise in this relevant connection. 8. An identical question came to be decided by this court in a recent judgment in case Gian Sarup v. State of Punjab, [2013(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2684] : 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 183, wherein having considered the scope of offences, in question, it was ruled as under (paras 20 & 21) :- “20. A conjoint and meaningful reading of sections 361, 363 and 366 IPC would reveal that in order to attract these provisions, the prosecution was required to prove by producing cogent evidence on record that the appellant has actually taken or enticed away or induced the prosecutrix with intent that she may be compelled to marry her. Actual taking or enticing away a minor out of the keeping of the lawful guardian are the essential ingredients of the offence of kidnaping. The word “takes” no doubt means physical taking not necessarily means by use of force or fraud. If the two words “taking or enticing” carrying a very significant meaning, are read together, would suggest that if the minor leaves her parental home completely uninfluenced by any promise, offer or inducement, then the accused cannot be considered to have committed the offence of kidnapping. If the two words “taking or enticing” carrying a very significant meaning, are read together, would suggest that if the minor leaves her parental home completely uninfluenced by any promise, offer or inducement, then the accused cannot be considered to have committed the offence of kidnapping. In other words, in case the minor herself abandoned the guardianship, in the absence of any evidence of taking or enticing or blandishments and left her father’s protection knowing and having capacity to know the full import of what she was doing voluntarily joined the appellant, perhaps it will not invite the application of the provisions of kidnapping. 21. That means, if the prosecution fails to prove that immediately prior to the minor leaving the father’s protection no active part was played by the accused, he had at some earlier stage solicited or persuaded the minor to do so, then, it would not be legitimate to infer that he is guilty of taking the minor out of the keeping of the lawful guardian merely because after she had voluntarily left her guardian’s house, joined and the accused helped her in her design not to return to her guardian’s house by taking her along with him from place to place to facilitate and fulfill the intention of the girl. It falls short of an inducement to the minor to slip out/abandon her father’s protection will not tantamount to “taking” as contemplated u/s 361 IPC. Reliance in this regard can be placed to a celebrated judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras 1965 AIR (SC) 942, which was subsequently followed in various judgments.” 9. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the law with regard to quashing of criminal prosecution on the basis of compromise is no more res integra and is now well-settled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, [2012(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3025 (SC) : 2012(6) Law Herald (SC) 4289] : 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543 has interpreted the relevant provisions and considered a line of the judgments on the indicated points and it was ruled (para 57) as under:- “57. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, [2012(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3025 (SC) : 2012(6) Law Herald (SC) 4289] : 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543 has interpreted the relevant provisions and considered a line of the judgments on the indicated points and it was ruled (para 57) as under:- “57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc., cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personnel in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personnel in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 10. Likewise, the same view was reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case Narinder Singh & others v. State of Punjab & Anr. [2014(2) Law Herald (SC) 1240 : 2014(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1671 (SC)] : 2014 (2) RCR (Criminal) 482. 11. Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that the parties have amicably settled their disputes, by virtue of compromise deed (Annexure P2) and the pointed report of the trial Court. 12. Such thus being the legal position and material on record, now the short & significant question, though important, which invites an immediate attention of this Court and arises for determination in this petition, is as to whether the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed on the basis of compromise or not? 13. Having regard to the contentions of the learned counsel, to my mind, it would be in the interest and justice would be sub-served if the impugned FIR is quashed. Moreover, the learned counsel are ad idem that, in view of the settlement of disputes between the parties, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 14. As is evident from the record that the complainant, who was major at the relevant time, was having love affairs with Samma petitioner No.1. She wanted to marry him. Moreover, the learned counsel are ad idem that, in view of the settlement of disputes between the parties, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 14. As is evident from the record that the complainant, who was major at the relevant time, was having love affairs with Samma petitioner No.1. She wanted to marry him. They had sexual intercourse, she became pregnant and gave birth to a male child on 18.4.2014. Subsequently, they performed marriage voluntarily, without any pressure or coercion, by way of marriage certificate (Annexure P3). The other accused have also recognized their marriage. Now with the intervention of respectables and members panchayat of the village, the parties have amicably settled their dispute, vide indicated compromise deed (Annexure P2). The complainant is now peacefully residing with petitioner No.1 with their child in her matrimonial home. Every body is happy with their marriage. The parties have redressed their grievances and have no grudge against each other. They want to live in peace and harmony in future. The settlement is stated to be in welfare, benefit and larger interest of the parties. The complainant has no objection in case, the criminal case registered against the petitioners, by means of impugned FIR is quashed. In that eventuality, the question of commission of indicated offences by the petitioners did not at all arise under the present set of circumstances. Thus, the registration of the impugned FIR by the complainant amounts to deep misuse/abuse of process of law and deserves to be quashed, in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in case State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604, which was again reiterated in case Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka [2008(2) Law Herald (SC) 1119] : 2008(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 92. The Bench mark for quashing the criminal prosecution as set out in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is fully applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 15. Therefore, there is no impediment in translating their wishes into reality and to quash the criminal prosecution to set the matter at rest, to enable them to live in peace and to enjoy the life and liberty in a dignified manner. 15. Therefore, there is no impediment in translating their wishes into reality and to quash the criminal prosecution to set the matter at rest, to enable them to live in peace and to enjoy the life and liberty in a dignified manner. Otherwise also, if the present prosecution is allowed to continue, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to the petitioners and adversely affect the matrimonial relationship of petitioner No.1 and complainant as husband & wife, which, to me, is not legally permissible in this relevant connection. 16. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties. 17. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) & all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed and the petitioners are discharged from the pointed criminal case on the basis of compromise, subject to all just exceptions. 18. Needless to mention that in case, petitioner No.1 fails to maintain and nicely keep the complainant as his wife, then, the criminal prosecution would be deemed to have been automatically revived and prosecution/complainant would be at liberty to prosecute them for the indicated offences. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————