SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Kuldeep Singh vs The State Of Punjab And Another on 5 July, 2018

Crl. Misc. M 23141 of 2018 1

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

Crl. Misc. M 23141 of 2018 (OM)
Date of decision: 5.7.2018

Kuldeep Singh
…Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
…Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present: Mr. AK Walia, Advocate
for the petitioner.

JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (Oral)

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

Criminal Procedure seeking for quashing of FIR No. 14 dated 27.1.2017

(Annexure P/1) registered under Sections 376/506 IPC at Police Station

Fatehgarh Sahib, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

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

by the complainant–Punam Devi–respondent No.2, stating that she met the

petitioner on 24.1.2017 at Gurdwara Amb Sahib, Mohali, when he told her that

he would secure some private job for her and gave her his mobile number also.

On 27.1.2017, at about 9 a.m. the petitioner phoned up the complainant and

told her that he would arrange a meeting with some officers in connection with

the job and she should come to Gurdwara Amb Sahib. Consequently, she

arrived at Gurdwara Amb Sahib, where from the petitioner took her to Palm

Restaurant and told her that the said officer is coming over there. Thereafter, he

took the complainant to a room, where he forcibly committed rape on her.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the

1 of 5
22-07-2018 00:30:28 :::
Crl. Misc. M 23141 of 2018 2

petitioner and respondent No.2 had met each other about one year and four

months prior to registration of the present FIR and developed intimacy and one

day they went to Palm Restaurant and stayed there in a room and had physical

relation with the petitioner of her own free will and consent and without any

pressure or allurement. However, during the course of that relationship,

because of some misunderstanding, a quarrel took place between them and

respondent No.2 went away from the room and in the heat of the moment

submitted an application leveling allegation of rape against the petitioner. He

further submits that now the matter has been compromised between the

complainant and the petitioner herein, as no incident, as alleged, had ever taken

place. In support of his contentions, he relies on the affidavit duly sworn by the

complainant wherein she has stated that she along with the petitioner had gone

to Palm Restaurant where she had physical relation with the petitioner out of

her own free will. It is further argued that the prosecutrix herself has admitted

that they exchanged hot words in the room and since the petitioner used foul

language and slapped her, she turned furious and got recorded the FIR against

the petitioner. In fact she simply wanted to teach a lesson to the petitioner. 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 that

2 of 5
22-07-2018 00:30:29 :::
Crl. Misc. M 23141 of 2018 3

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.”

4. 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
assured that the consent given by the victim in
compromising the case is a genuine consent, there is every

3 of 5
22-07-2018 00:30:29 :::
Crl. Misc. M 23141 of 2018 4

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 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

4 of 5
22-07-2018 00:30:29 :::
Crl. Misc. M 23141 of 2018 5

thoroughly and completely sans legal permissibility.”

5. 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. 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, this court is unable to quash the FIR, in

view of the law as settled in Madan Lal’s case (supra).

6. The present petition deserves to be dismissed. Ordered

accordingly.

5.7.2018 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
prem JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No

5 of 5
22-07-2018 00:30:29 :::

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 © 2021 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 read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation