Kuldeep Singh @ Hardeep Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 20 December, 2017

CRM-M-41712-2017 -1-

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

CRM-M-41712-2017
Date of decision: 20.12.2017

Kuldeep Singh @ Hardeep Singh …Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab another …Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:- Mr. A. S. Dhindsa, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. J. S. Moudgill, Advocate
for the complainant/respondent No. 2.

JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (Oral)

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

Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 37 dated 07.03.2017,

registered under Sections 363, 366-A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code at

Police Station Sadar Samana, District Patiala and all subsequent

proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise entered into

between the parties.

2. The aforesaid FIR was registered on a complaint submitted by

the father of the respondent No. 2 herein with the allegations that the

petitioner herein has allured his elder daughter Manpreet Kaur

(respondent No. 2 herein) who was aged about 18 years on the pretext of

marrying her and has taken away her from his house when she was sleeping

with her sister and mother. However, now with the intervention of

1 of 5
24-12-2017 08:51:35 :::
CRM-M-41712-2017 -2-

respectable persons, the dispute has been amicably settled between the

parties and they have entered into a compromise by way of an affidavit. In

the affidavit, the prosecutrix has stated that she was having love affair with

the petitioner and she has left her home in the company of the petitioner out

of her own will. It has also been stated that the petitioner has not done

anything wrong against the prosecutrix.

3. By an order dated 06.11.2017, 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 Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. In pursuance of the direction, a

report has been received from the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, 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.

4. 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

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.

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

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

2 of 5
24-12-2017 08:51:36 :::
CRM-M-41712-2017 -3-

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.”

6. 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

3 of 5
24-12-2017 08:51:36 :::
CRM-M-41712-2017 -4-

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.”

7. 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.

8. 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.

4 of 5
24-12-2017 08:51:36 :::
CRM-M-41712-2017 -5-

9. 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. 37 dated 07.03.2017, registered under

Sections 363, 366-A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station

Sadar Samana, District Patiala and all subsequent proceedings arising out of

the same are quashed qua the petitioner herein.

20.12.2017 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE

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

5 of 5
24-12-2017 08:51:36 :::

Leave a Comment

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