Nishan Singh @ Sandeep Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 13 November, 2017

Crl. Misc. M-34484 of 2017 -1-

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

Crl. Misc. M- 34484 of 2017 (OM)
Date of Decision: November 13, 2017

Nishan Singh @ Sandeep Singh

…Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others
…Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

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

Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, DAG Punjab.

Mr. Vaibhav Mittal, 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.168 dated 15.08.2017

registered under Sections 363, 366-A of Indian Penal Code (offence under

Section 376 of IPC added later on) at Police Station Cantonment, Amritsar

(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 15.08.2017 on the statement of complainant-Baljinder Singh,

in which it was stated that his eldest daughter Amanpreet Kaur, aged 17

years used to go on bus to WEBERZ Centre for IELTS coaching, which is

1 of 6
16-11-2017 23:56:16 :::
Crl. Misc. M-34484 of 2017 -2-

situated opposite to Guru Nanak Dev University market and would come

back at 2.30 p.m. It is submitted that on 14.08.2017, his daughter went to

WEBERZ Centre on bus as per her routine, but did not return bank on time.

Thereafter, he enquired about his daughter from neighbours and came to

know that one Nishan Singh s/o Amrik Singh, who used to follow his

daughter, had taken away his daughter by giving her false assurance of

marriage.

3. Immediately 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 a

misunderstanding 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 15.09.2017, 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 Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class at Amritsar wherein, statements were made

by the complainant and his daughter that they 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

2 of 6
16-11-2017 23:56:17 :::
Crl. Misc. M-34484 of 2017 -3-

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 the

petitioner and the prosecutrix are of young age. As per the compromise

arrived at between the parties, the petitioner and the prosecutrix have

already got married with their own sweet will. Now the complainant and

the petitioner have no grudge against each other. As per the terms and

conditions of compromise, once the FIR is quashed and the petitioner will

come out of jail, the complainant will send his daughter with the petitioner

as his wife. This court is of the opinion that in case, the proceedings are not

allowed to be compromised, the prosecutrix herself would be put to

hardship. Since both the parties have amicably settled their dispute,

continuance of criminal prosecution would be an exercise in futility, as the

chances of ultimate conviction are bleak.

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

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

3 of 6
16-11-2017 23:56:17 :::
Crl. Misc. M-34484 of 2017 -4-

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
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

4 of 6
16-11-2017 23:56:17 :::
Crl. Misc. M-34484 of 2017 -5-

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

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.168 dated 15.08.2017 registered under

5 of 6
16-11-2017 23:56:17 :::
Crl. Misc. M-34484 of 2017 -6-

Sections 363, 366-A of Indian Penal Code (offence under Section 376 of

IPC added later on) at Police Station Cantonment, Amritsar and all

subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are quashed.

October 31, 2017 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
vijay saini JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No

6 of 6
16-11-2017 23:56:17 :::

Leave a Comment

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