Avtar Singh & Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 13 December, 2017

CRM-M-23157-2017 -1-


CRM-M-23157-2017 (OM)
Date of decision: 13.12.2017

Avtar Singh others …Petitioners


State of Punjab and another …Respondents


Present:- Mr. Jagraj Singh Khiva, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Mr. A.S. Dhaliwal, DAG Punjab.

None for respondent No. 2.


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

Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 19 dated 21.02.2015,

registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 376, 506, 420 and 120-B of Indian

Penal Code at Police Station Boha, District Mansa (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 aforesaid FIR came to

be registered at the behest of the complainant/respondent No. 2 in which it

was stated that her marriage was solemnized with Harpal Singh son of

Randhir Singh on 15.02.2001 as per Sikh rites and rituals. Sufficient dowry

was given at the time of marriage. However, due to demand for more dowry

by the husband and his family members, a matrimonial dispute arose

between the parties. It was also stated in the FIR that Avtar Singh, brother

1 of 5
16-12-2017 04:03:16 :::
CRM-M-23157-2017 -2-

of the husband of the complainant, forcibly made illicit relations with the


4. By an order dated 30.10.2017, 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 JMIC at Budhlada. In pursuance of the direction, a report has been

received from JMIC at Budhlada, stating that the compromise arrived at

between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and

the same appears to be genuine one.

5. Reply, on behalf of the respondent-State, has been filed in

which it is submitted that after investigation a cancellation report was filed

before the learned Area Magistrate, however, complainant appeared and did

not agree with the cancellation report and requested for reinvestigation in

the case. The learned Area Magistrate ordered for reinvestigation. The

reinvestigation of the case was conducted by Superintendent of Police (HQ),

Mansa and during the course of reinvestigation, it was found that the

complainant has compromised the matter with the accused persons on

15.02.2016 with the intervention of the respectables and during

investigation this fact was admitted by the complainant that both the parties

want cancellation of the case.

6. In normal circumstances, this 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 includes an offence

punishable 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

2 of 5
16-12-2017 04:03:17 :::
CRM-M-23157-2017 -3-

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.

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
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 :-

3 of 5
16-12-2017 04:03:17 :::
CRM-M-23157-2017 -4-

“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
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. 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

4 of 5
16-12-2017 04:03:17 :::
CRM-M-23157-2017 -5-

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. 19 dated 21.02.2015, registered under

Sections 498-A, 406, 376, 506, 420 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code at

Police Station Boha, District Mansa (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent

proceedings arising out of the same are quashed qua the petitioners herein.

December 13, 2017 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No

5 of 5
16-12-2017 04:03:17 :::

Leave a Comment

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