SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Pardeep Singh @ Pardeep Kumar And … vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 24 January, 2018

Crl. Misc. M-9091 of 2017 -1-

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

Crl. Misc. M-9091 of 2017 (OM)
Date of Decision: January 24, 2018

Pardeep Singh @ Pardeep Kumar and others

…Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another
…Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:- Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Mr. A.S. Sandhu, Addl. AG Punjab.

JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (Oral)

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

Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No.78 dated 01.08.2016

registered under Sections 363, 376, 120-B of Indian Penal Code at Police

Station Lambra, Jalandhar (Annexure P/1) and all subsequent proceedings

arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure P/3).

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

registered on 01.08.2016 under Sections 363, 376, 120-B of Indian Penal

Code, in which it was stated by respondent No.2-complainant that Kamla,

Lal Chand, Rano and Amandeep allured her to perform marriage with

Pardeep Singh, but she replied that she will not perform marriage without

the consent of her parents. But despite that, about one month ago, Pardeep

Singh without her consent forcibly committed rape upon her at the instance

1 of 6
04-02-2018 18:22:38 :::
Crl. Misc. M-9091 of 2017 -2-

of Kamla and Amandeep Kaur and also took her obscene photographs.

They threatened the complainant that if she will disclose this incident to

anyone, they will upload her obscene photographs on internet and because

of this fear, she remained silent. However Pardeep Singh, by calling her to

the house of Amandeep Kaur and Kamla, had been committing rape on her

by giving threats. It was mentioned that on 06.07.2016, the petitioners-

accused in connivance with each other enticed the complainant to perform

marriage and took her original documents and photographs. Thereafter on

08.07.2016, Amandeep Kaur took the complainant to her house, where all

the accused persons were already present and under the threat of publishing

her obscene photographs public, they took the complainant to the house of

Pardeep Singh, where he again forcibly committed rape upon her. It is

stated that when the accused persons came to know that parents of the

complainant and other villagers came to know about this incident of

kidnapping her, the accused persons, while leaving her outside the Police

Station Maqsudan, Jalandhar, fled away from there.

3. After lodging of the FIR, the complainant herein made a

statement to the effect that she has compromised the matter. It is stated in

the petition that the complainant was in love with Pardeep Singh and

relations between the two were consensual in nature. It is also mentioned

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.

2 of 6
04-02-2018 18:22:39 :::
Crl. Misc. M-9091 of 2017 -3-

4. By an order dated 12.07.2017, 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 Jalandhar wherein, a statement was

made by 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 the

complainant was a young lady of 20 years and petitioner No.1-Pardeep

Singh was a young man of 21 years. Petitioner No.1 used to visit the house

of his father’s sister (Bua), where he and complainant came into contact with

each other. In the compromise (Annexure P-3) entered into between the

parties it is stated that the instant FIR has been got lodged by the

complainant due to some misunderstanding and now that misunderstanding

has been removed. It is also stated in the compromise that in order to

maintain peace and harmony, the village Panchayat has intervened into the

matter and got the matter compromised. It is also agreed between the

parties that they will not file any civil or criminal case against each other in

3 of 6
04-02-2018 18:22:39 :::
Crl. Misc. M-9091 of 2017 -4-

future and will reside peacefully in future. Even during the course of

proceedings in this court, complainant-respondent also furnished an

affidavit before this court that the matter stands compromised between the

parties with the intervention of respectable persons of the village, because

both the parties are resident of same village and locality. Counsel for the

petitioner submits that after entering into compromise, both the parties are

living peacefully and have no grudge against each other. 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 for recording of her statement and it will

disturb the atmosphere of the village and locality, as both the parties are

resident of the same village and locality.

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

4 of 6
04-02-2018 18:22:39 :::
Crl. Misc. M-9091 of 2017 -5-

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
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

5 of 6
04-02-2018 18:22:39 :::
Crl. Misc. M-9091 of 2017 -6-

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.78 dated 01.08.2016 registered under

Sections 363, 376, 120-B of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Lambra,

Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are

quashed.

January 24, 2018 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
vijay saini JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No

6 of 6
04-02-2018 18:22:39 :::

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 Group Rules, If You agree then JOIN HERE

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