SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Deepak vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 19 January, 2018

CRM-M-31825-2017 -1-

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

CRM-M-31825-2017
Date of decision: 19.01.2018

Deepak …Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another …Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:- Ms. Bhagyshree, Advocate for
Mr. Jaininder Saini, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate
for 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. 461 dated 11.12.2015,

registered under Sections 376(1)A, 452 and 506 of the IPC and Section 6 of

the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act at Police Station Hansi

Sadar, District Hisar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in

view of the compromise entered into between the parties.

2. The aforesaid FIR has been registered on the complaint of

respondent No. 2/prosecutrix herein. In brief, the facts of the case are that

respondent No. 2 is a student of class 10. On 07.12.2015, she was sleeping

in her room and her mother was sleeping outside. Suddenly, Vicky son of

Kashmira entered into the house and after gagging the mouth of respondent

No. 2 took her in a vacant plot, where he removed the salwar of respondent

1 of 5
26-01-2018 04:50:16 :::
CRM-M-31825-2017 -2-

No. 2 by showing her knife and committed rape upon her and threatened her

that she would be killed if she discloses the incident to anyone. However,

now with the intervention of respectable persons, the dispute has been

amicably settled between the parties and they have entered into a

compromise. In the petition, it has specifically been pleaded that pendency

of these proceedings would hamper the settlement of the prosecutrix in

future and it would be in the welfare of the prosecutrix if the FIR in

question is quashed.

3. By an order dated 10.11.2017, 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 at Hisar. In pursuance of the direction, a

report has been received from the Additional Sessions Judge at Hisar,

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 offence

punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act 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.

2 of 5
26-01-2018 04:50:16 :::
CRM-M-31825-2017 -3-

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

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

3 of 5
26-01-2018 04:50:16 :::
CRM-M-31825-2017 -4-

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.”

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 and Section 6

of the POCSO Act on the basis of the compromise should be accepted. As

4 of 5
26-01-2018 04:50:16 :::
CRM-M-31825-2017 -5-

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. Moreover, there is a specific plea in the petition

that continuation of the proceedings under the FIR in question would

hamper the settlement of the prosecutrix in future.

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. 461 dated 11.12.2015, registered under

Sections 376(1)A, 452 and 506 of the IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act at Police Station Hansi Sadar, District

Hisar and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are quashed

qua the petitioner herein.

19.01.2018 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE

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

5 of 5
26-01-2018 04:50:16 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Rules of Group, If You agree then Message us on Above Number.

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh