SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Gurmeet Singh vs State Of Punjab & Others on 21 February, 2018

CRM No.M-3673 of 2017
-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. No. M- 3673 of 2017(OM)
Date of Decision: February 21 , 2018.

Gurmeet Singh …… PETITIONER(s)

Versus

State of Punjab and others …… RESPONDENT (s)

CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present: Mr. Vishal Goel, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Sukhbir Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Davinder Kumar Punia, Advocate for
Mr. Maninder Singh Punia, Advocate
for respondents No.2 and 3.
*****

LISA GILL, J.

Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.0044 dated

15.05.2016 under Sections 363/366A and Section 8 of the Protection of Children

from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, the ‘POCSO Act’) (Section 376 IPC as

well as Section 4 of the POCSO Act were added subsequently, whereas Section 8

of the POCSO Act was deleted), registered at Police Station Sadar Rajpura,

District Patiala and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

It is submitted that marriage has been solemnized between the

petitioner and respondent No.3, therefore, no offence punishable under Sections

1 of 4
25-02-2018 01:42:15 :::
CRM No.M-3673 of 2017
-2-

363/366A/376 and Sections 8/4 of the POCSO Act is made out against the

petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner and respondent No.3 had

friendly relations and wished to solemnize marriage with each other, but this was

not to the liking of the complainant i.e., the father of the victim/respondent No.3.

It is further submitted that the alleged victim/respondent No.3 is now major, her

date of birth being 27.02.1999. Marriage between the petitioner and respondent

No.3 was solemnized on 17.05.2017. Marriage certificate is attached as Annexure

P3 with this petition.

Moreover, the complainant/respondent No.2 i.e., the father of

respondent No.3 has accepted this marriage and he has no objection in case the

abovesaid FIR against the petitioner is quashed. It is thus submitted that rigours

of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Madanlal, 2015

(7) SCC 681 are not applicable in the factual matrix of this case. Therefore, it is

prayed that this petition be allowed.

This Court on 06.02.2017 directed the parties to appear before

learned trial court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements. Learned trial

court/Illaqa Magistrate was directed to submit a report regarding the validity or

otherwise of the compromise after recording the statements of all the concerned

parties.

Pursuant to order dated 06.02.2017, the parties appeared before the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala and their statements were recorded.

The said statements have been duly reproduced in the report dated 07.04.2017

submitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. It is mentioned in

the said report that respondent No.3, the alleged victim specifically stated that she

2 of 4
25-02-2018 01:42:16 :::
CRM No.M-3673 of 2017
-3-

was in love with the petitioner and wished to solemnize marriage with him. With

the intervention of respectables of the family as well as the relatives, the matter

has been compromised and it is agreed that her marriage would be performed

with the petitioner on her attaining majority. The complainant/respondent No.2

stated that the matter has been amicably resolved with the intervention of the

family members and relatives from both the sides and he has no objection to the

solemnization of marriage of his daughter with the petitioner. The

complainant/respondent No.2 further stated that he has no objection in case the

abovesaid FIR against the accused petitioner is quashed. Statements of the

petitioner as well as his father in respect to the settlement were recorded as well.

As per the said report, it is opined that the parties have suffered their statements

out of their free will without any fear, pressure or coercion from any quarter. The

petitioner is not reported to be a proclaimed offender.

Learned counsel for respondents No.2 3 and learned counsel for

the State, on instructions from HC Darshan Singh, affirm and verify that marriage

has been solemnized by the petitioner with respondent No.3 on 17.05.2017 and

both of them are living together at their matrimonial home. Learned counsel for

respondents No.2 and 3 states that the said respondents have no objection to the

quashing of the abovementioned FIR against the petitioner.

In Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another

2007 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1052, a five member Bench of this Court has

observed as under:-

“The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of
harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the
power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is used to

3 of 4
25-02-2018 01:42:16 :::
CRM No.M-3673 of 2017
-4-

enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social
amity and reduces friction, then it truly is “finest hour of justice”.

Doubtlessly, FIR No.0044 dated 15.05.2016 was registered under

Sections 363/366A and Section 8 of the POCSO Act against the petitioner.

However, keeping in view the subsequent events i.e., the solemnization of

marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.3, no useful purpose would be

solved by keeping the proceedings alive. It will further lead to wastage of

precious time of the court and would be an exercise in futility. In order to render

complete justice to the parties, it is considered just and expedient to allow this

petition.

FIR No.0044 dated 15.05.2016 under Sections 363/366A and

Section 8 of the POCSO Act (Section 376 IPC as well as Section 4 of the POCSO

Act were added subsequently, whereas Section 8 of the POCSO Act was deleted),

registered at Police Station Sadar Rajpura, District Patiala alongwith all

consequential proceedings are, hereby, quashed.

( LISA GILL )
February 21 , 2018. JUDGE
‘om’

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

4 of 4
25-02-2018 01:42:16 :::

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 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