Sarabjit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 3 November, 2017

Crl. Misc. M-30761 of 2017 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Crl. Misc. M-30761 of 2017 (OM)
Date of Decision: November 03, 2017

Sarabjit Singh

…Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another
…Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:- Mr. D.S. Kahlon, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. A.S. Dhaliwal, DAG Punjab.

Ms. Mandeep Kaur, Advocate
for respondent No.2.

JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (Oral)

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No.126 dated 16.10.2011

registered under Sections 376 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station

Sultanpur Lodhi, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala (Annexure

P/1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the

compromise (Annexure P/2 ).

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the instant FIR came to be

registered on 16.10.2011 under Section 376 IPC in which it was stated by

respondent No.2-complainant that when she used to go to school, accused

Sarabjit Singh was following her and was harassing her. Thereafter, by

misleading her, he took her into his confidence and told her that he wanted

1 of 6
09-11-2017 01:18:28 :::
Crl. Misc. M-30761 of 2017 -2-

to marry her. It is stated that the complainant also came into his confidence

and thereafter, many times he made physical relations with her. It is alleged

by the complainant that in spite of her refusal, accused Sarabjit Singh came

to her house on 01.08.2011 and also made illicit relation with her. It is

mentioned that when her parents saw all this, accused gave beatings to her

father, due to which her father remained admitted in the hospital. It is

submitted that thereafter, a decision was taken that the accused will marry

her. It is alleged by the complainant that she came to know that accused

Sarabjit Singh is trying to run away to abroad and if he will succeed in this,

then her whole life would be ruined. The complainant made a request that

till she attains majority, the accused should get engaged to her with her and

when she attains majority, then marry her. She also requested for

confiscation of passport of the accused, so that he cannot run away to

abroad.

3. After lodging of the FIR, the complainant herein swore an

affidavit and made a statement to the effect that the matter has been

compromised. It is stated in the petition, that due to the misunderstanding

the case FIR was lodged by the complainant. It is prayed that the FIR and all

other proceedings taken thereafter be quashed in order to bring an end to

the litigation between the parties. Based on the said compromise, the instant

quashing petition was filed.

4. By an order dated 22.08.2017, the parties were directed to

appear before the trial court so that their statement could be recorded

regarding the genuineness of the compromise. The parties appeared before

the Addl. Sessions Judge at Kapurthala wherein, a statement was made by

2 of 6
09-11-2017 01:18:30 :::
Crl. Misc. M-30761 of 2017 -3-

the complainant that she did not want to pursue the FIR.

5. In normal circumstances, the Court would not entertain a matter

when the non compoundable offences are heinous and serious in nature. In

the instant case, the offence complained of is under Section 376 IPC which

is an offence of grave nature. This court is aware of the fact that time and

again it has been held that an offence under Section 376 IPC is a grievous

offence and considered as an offence against the society at large and thus,

such matters should not be compromised. In the eyes of law, the offence of

rape is serious and non-compoundable and the Courts should not in ordinary

circumstances interfere and quash the FIR that has been registered.

6. In the instant case, a reading of the FIR would show that both

the petitioner and complainant had an affair, when they were of young age

and got into physical relationship with each other. They were in relationship

for some time and when the petitioner did not solemnize marriage with her,

the instant FIR came to be lodged on 16.10.2011. It is thereafter that a

compromise has been arrived at between the parties. Counsel for the parties

informed this court that the complainant is now married and has two

daughters. It is stated by complainant in her statement before the trial court

that she is well settled and living happy married life. For her better future

and for better future of her children, she did not want to pursue the present

case and want to live in peace and harmony. This court is of the opinion

that in case, the proceedings are not allowed to be compromised, the

complainant herself would be put to hardship as she would necessarily have

to appear before the courts to pursue the proceedings.

7. In a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

3 of 6
09-11-2017 01:18:30 :::
Crl. Misc. M-30761 of 2017 -4-

Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 2014(6) SCC

466, the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down certain principles and guidelines

which should be kept in mind while quashing of FIRs pertaining to

noncompoundable offence. For ready reference paragraphs No. 29.2 and

29.5 are reproduced as under :-

“29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on
that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is
filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure :

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While
exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion
on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to
examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is
remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would
put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and
extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing
the criminal case.”

8. Even in a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Madan Mohan Abbot vs State Of Punjab, 2008 (4) SCC 582, it has been

held that it is 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. Relevant paragraph of the said

judgment is reproduced herein below :-

“5. It is on the basis of this compromise that the
application was filed in the High Court for quashing of
proceedings which has been dismissed by the impugned
order. We notice from a reading of the FIR and the other

4 of 6
09-11-2017 01:18:30 :::
Crl. Misc. M-30761 of 2017 -5-

documents on record that the dispute was purely a personal
one between two contesting parties and that it arose out of
extensive business dealings between them and that there
was absolutely no public policy involved in the nature of
the allegations made against the accused. We are,
therefore, of the opinion that no useful purpose would be
served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the
compromise and also in the light of the fact that the
complainant has, on 11th January 2004, passed away and
the possibility of a conviction being recorded has thus to be
ruled out.

6. We need to emphasize 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 utilized 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.”

9. Even in the judgment rendered in Gian Singh vs State of

Punjab Anr, reported as 2012(10) SCC 303 the basic principle of law as

laid down is that where offences are purely private in nature and do not

concern public policy, the power to quash proceedings involving non-

compoundable offences on the basis of compromise can be exercised.

10. Therefore, while relying upon the ratios of the aforesaid

judgments, this Court is of the view that the compromise which has been

entered into for quashing of an offence under Section 376 IPC on the basis

of the compromise should be accepted. As has been held in Narinder Singh

Ors. case (supra) those cases where a settlement is arrived at immediately

5 of 6
09-11-2017 01:18:30 :::
Crl. Misc. M-30761 of 2017 -6-

after the alleged commission of the offence the High Court may be liberal in

accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings.

11. Consequently, keeping in view the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the present case and in view of the above ratios of law, this

petition is allowed and the FIR No.126 dated 16.10.2011 registered under

Sections 376 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, Tehsil

Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala and all subsequent proceedings arising

out of the same are quashed.

November 03, 2017 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
vijay saini JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No

6 of 6
09-11-2017 01:18:30 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *