SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Anand Mishra vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 14 May, 2018

Crl. Misc. M 5205 of 2018 1

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

Crl. Misc. M 5205 of 2018 (OM)
Date of decision: 14.5.2018

Anand Mishra
…Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
…Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present: Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mrs. Anju Arora, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

Mr. L.S. Mann, Advocate,
for respondents No.2 and 3.

JAISHREE THAKUR, J.

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

Criminal Procedure seeking for quashing of FIR No. 70 dated 9.5.2015

(Annexure P/1) registered under Sections 363, 366-A IPC (Section 376 IPC

and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act added

later on) at Police Station Daba, District Ludhiana, and all subsequent

proceedings arising therefrom.

2. In brief, the facts are that the aforesaid FIR came to be

registered by the complainant–Shiv Nayak, stating that he has two children,

one of whom, the prosecutrix, was pursuing her studies in PMT Coaching

from Akash Coaching Centre situated near P.U., Ludhiana. On 28.4.2015 at

about 7.30 a.m., she went to her coaching institute, but did not return

thereafter. He searched for her at his own level and came to know that

1 of 6
20-05-2018 02:53:24 :::
Crl. Misc. M 5205 of 2018 2

Anand Mishra, the petitioner herein, who is student of RGCSM Computer

Centre had taken her away on the pretext of marrying her. On the statement

so made, the matter was investigated and the petitioner herein was arrested

near Apollo Hospital, Ludhiana and the victim was recovered from him on

11.5.2015. On 12.5.2015, both the petitioner and the prosecutrix were

medically examined and the petitioner herein was arrested. Thereafter,

challan was presented under Sections 376, 363 and 366-A IPC and Section 6

of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter has

been compromised between the complainant and the petitioner herein, as no

incident, as alleged, had ever taken place. In fact, the compromise has been

entered into between the parties in which it has clearly been stated by the

complainant and his daughter that they have no objection in case the FIR is

quashed. The parties have also got their statements recorded before the

Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, affirming the contents of the

compromise arrived at between the parties. It is further argued that initially

the FIR was registered under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC only and Section

376 IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act were added later on under the pressure of the parents, as such, no

offence under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children

from Sexual Offences Act are made out.

4. Appearance has been caused on behalf of the complainant and

the prosecutrix, who both are present in Court and submits that they have no

objection in case the FIR is quashed. It is further submitted that the

prosecutrix, in the meantime, has married and she is settled in her

2 of 6
20-05-2018 02:53:25 :::
Crl. Misc. M 5205 of 2018 3

matrimonial home. It is submitted that in case proceedings and the FIR are

not quashed, it would cause disturbance in her matrimonial life.

5. In the instant case, on a reading of the contents of the FIR at the

first instance, no offence under Section 376 IPC is made out nor does the

statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

No doubt, Section 376 IPC has been added after medical was conducted

making the offence heinous and serious in nature. The offence under Section

376 IPC is a non-compoundable and considered as an offence against the

society at large and can not be quashed easily.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the prosecutrix left

voluntarily in the company of the petitioner as would be evident that she

remained with him for almost two weeks and it is only when they were

apprehended and under pressure of her parents a statement alleging the

offence of rape was made out. It is argued that the prosecutrix is almost 17

years of age FIR would result in undue hardship to the petitioner herein,

who is a student himself. It is also argued that there are remote chances of

conviction since the matter already stands settled between the parties where

it has been recorded that the FIR was got recorded under a mis-

apprehension. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another,

2014(6) SCC 466, to quash the FIR, in view of the principles and guidelines

laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court pertaining to non-compoundable

offences. 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

3 of 6
20-05-2018 02:53:25 :::
Crl. Misc. M 5205 of 2018 4

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. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Madhya

Pradesh Versus Madan Lal (2015) 7 Supreme Court Cases 681, while

dealing with the situation like in the present case observed as under:-

“Having stated the aforesaid, ordinarily we would have
proceeded to record our formal conclusion, but, an extremely
pertinent and pregnant one, another aspect in the context of
this case warrants to be addressed. As it seems to us the
learned Single Judge has been influenced by the compromise
that has been entered into between the accused and the parents
of the victim as the victim was a minor. The learned trial Judge
had rejected the said application on the ground that the offence
was not compoundable. In this context, it is profitable to
reproduce a passage from Shimbhu and Another v. State of
Haryana (2014) 13 SCC 318, wherein, a three-Judge Bench
has ruled thus:-

“Further, a compromise entered into between the parties
cannot be construed as a leading factor based on which
lesser punishment can be awarded. Rape is a non-
compoundable offence and it is an offence against the
society and is not a matter to be left for the parties to
compromise and settle. Since the Court cannot always be

4 of 6
20-05-2018 02:53:25 :::
Crl. Misc. M 5205 of 2018 5

assured that the consent given by the victim in
compromising the case is a genuine consent, there is
every chance that she might have been pressurized by the
convicts or the trauma undergone by her all the years
might have compelled her to opt for a compromise. In
fact, accepting this proposition will put an additional
burden on the victim. The accused may use all his
influence to pressurise her for a compromise. So, in the
interest of justice and to avoid unnecessary
pressure/harassment to the victim, it would not be safe in
considering the compromise arrived at between the
parties in rape cases to be a ground for the Court to
exercise the discretionary power under the proviso of
Section 376(2) IPC.”

xx xx xx
We would like to clearly state that in a case of rape or attempt
of rape, the conception of compromise under no circumstances
can really be thought of. These are crimes against the body of a
woman which is her own temple. These are offences which
suffocate the breath of life and sully the reputation. And
reputation, needless to emphasise, is the richest jewel one can
conceive of in life. No one would allow it to be extinguished.

When a human frame is defiled, the “purest treasure”, is lost.
Dignity of a woman is a part of her non-perishable and
immortal self and no one should ever think of painting it in
clay. There cannot be a compromise or settlement as it would
be against her honour which matters the most. It is sacrosanct.
Sometimes solace is given that the perpetrator of the crime has
acceded to enter into wedlock with her which is nothing but
putting pressure in an adroit manner; and we say with
emphasis that the Courts are to remain absolutely away from
this subterfuge to adopt a soft approach to the case, for any
kind of liberal approach has to be put in the compartment of

5 of 6
20-05-2018 02:53:25 :::
Crl. Misc. M 5205 of 2018 6

spectacular error. Or to put it differently, it would be in the
realm of a sanctuary of error. We are compelled to say so as
such an attitude reflects lack of sensibility towards the dignity,
the elan vital, of a woman. Any kind of liberal approach or
thought of mediation in this regard is thoroughly and
completely sans legal permissibility.”

8. Even though both the petitioner and the complainant have

pressed for the quashing of the FIR on the basis that continuance of the

same will cause undue harassment to the prosecutrix who is happily married

elsewhere and there are chance of putting her matrimonial life in jeopardy,

this court is unable to quash the FIR, in view of the law as settled in Madan

Lal’s case (supra).

9. The present petition deserves to be dismissed. Ordered

accordingly.

14.5.2018 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
prem JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No

6 of 6
20-05-2018 02:53:25 :::

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 to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh