SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Juj Singh vs State Of Punjab & Another on 19 December, 2017

CRM-M-42323-2017 -1-

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

CRM-M-42323-2017
Date of decision: 19.12.2017

Juj Singh …Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab another …Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:- Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, DAG, Punjab.

Ms. Karamjot Kaur, Advocate for
Mr. Jasmeet S. Ghuman, 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. 140 dated 28.07.2017

(Annexure P-1), registered under Sections 366, 376 and 34 of the Indian

Penal Code at Police Station Sadar Jalalabad, Tehsil Jalalabad, District

Fazilka all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the

compromise entered into between the parties.

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 on 25.07.2017, she along with her mother went to her

maternal home in village Faliya Wala. In the evening, her father Nanak

Singh and brother Hardial Singh went to work. The complainant and her

brother Amandeep Singh, after having meals, were sleeping in the courtyard

1 of 5
24-12-2017 00:52:00 :::
CRM-M-42323-2017 -2-

and at about 10.30 PM, the complainant went to pass urine but when she

returned to the courtyard, Juj Singh son of Harbans Singh and Gurjant Singh

son of Balkar Singh, friends of her brother, were standing over there. They

forcibly took away the complainant to the fields where the accused-

petitioner committed rape upon her. The matter was reported to the police

and the instant FIR was got registered. 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 fact, the petitioner has

performed marriage with the complainant and they are residing together

happily.

3. By an order dated 08.11.2017, 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 Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Jalalabad. In pursuance of the

direction, a report has been received from Sub Divisional Judicial

Magistrate at Jalalabad, 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. The complainant, in her statement, has stated

that she has performed marriage with Juj Singh and is residing with him as

his wife.

4. Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, DAG, Punjab, on instructions from the

Investigating Officer, and learned counsel for respondent No. 2 admit to the

factum of compromise and submit that in case the parties have indeed

settled their dispute, they would have no objection to the quashing of the

FIR, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

5. In normal circumstances, this Court would not entertain a

2 of 5
24-12-2017 00:52:00 :::
CRM-M-42323-2017 -3-

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.

6. 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.”

7. Even in a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

3 of 5
24-12-2017 00:52:00 :::
CRM-M-42323-2017 -4-

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
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.”

8. 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

4 of 5
24-12-2017 00:52:00 :::
CRM-M-42323-2017 -5-

policy, the power to quash proceedings involving non-compoundable

offences on the basis of compromise can be exercised.

9. 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.

10. 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. 140 dated 28.07.2017 (Annexure P-1),

registered under Sections 366, 376 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code at

Police Station Sadar Jalalabad, Tehsil Jalalabad, District Fazilka and all

subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are quashed qua the

petitioner herein only.

19.12.2017 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE

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

5 of 5
24-12-2017 00:52:00 :::

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation