SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rajbir Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 1 March, 2018

Crl. Misc. M-1722 of 2018 -1-

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

Crl. Misc. M-1722 of 2018 (OM)
Date of Decision: March 01, 2018

Rajbir Singh

…Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another
…Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:- Mr. K.D.S. Hooda, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Mr. P.P. Chahar, DAG Haryana.

Mr. Sandeep Malik, 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.7 dated 13.08.2017

registered under Section 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code at Police Station

Women, Sirsa (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 13.08.2017 under Section 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal

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

doing the orchestra and also working in insurance company. She is

having two children. She has a divorce case pending with her husband at

courts at Jind. On 28th December, when she was going in bus from Jind

1 of 6
11-03-2018 08:22:00 :::
Crl. Misc. M-1722 of 2018 -2-

to Ratia, the petitioner-accused showed his interest in getting the

insurance done and they exchanged their mobile numbers. After that they

met number of times and thereafter, the petitioner-accused proposed the

complainant to marry him and on this pretext, established physical

relation with her at different places. After some time, the complainant

came to know that the petitioner-accused is a married man. However, on

the pretext that the petitioner-accused was having nude photographs of

the complainant, he kept on having physical relations with the

complainant, under threat of showing the said photographs to everyone.

3. After lodging of the FIR, the complainant herein entered

into a compromise with the petitioner-accused and made a statement to

the effect that the matter has been compromised. It is stated in the

petition, 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.

4. By an order dated 17.01.2018, 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate at Sirsa, 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

2 of 6
11-03-2018 08:22:01 :::
Crl. Misc. M-1722 of 2018 -3-

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 is aged 30 years. She and the petitioner-accused came

across each other and intimacy developed between them and they started

living together and resided at different places. It is stated that due to

some quarrel, the instant FIR came to be got lodged by complainant-

respondent No.2. It is mentioned that both the petitioner-accused and

complainant-respondent No.2 are living together. 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.

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

3 of 6
11-03-2018 08:22:01 :::
Crl. Misc. M-1722 of 2018 -4-

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 :-

“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

4 of 6
11-03-2018 08:22:01 :::
Crl. Misc. M-1722 of 2018 -5-

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. 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

5 of 6
11-03-2018 08:22:01 :::
Crl. Misc. M-1722 of 2018 -6-

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.7 dated 13.08.2017 registered

under Section 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Women,

Sirsa and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are quashed.

March 01, 2018 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
vijay saini JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No

6 of 6
11-03-2018 08:22:01 :::

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