SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Pardeep And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 9 August, 2018

CRM-M-48320-2017(OM) -1-


Date of decision:-9.8.2018

Pardeep and others



State of Haryana and others



Present : Mr.Shailender Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Mr.Gaurav Bansal, AAG, Haryana.

Mr.Arun Gupta, Advocate
for respondents No.2 and 3.



Briefly stated, facts of the case as per prosecution story are

that complainant Ritu d/o late Sh.Surjeet Singh, resident of VPO

Naguran, District Jind had submitted a written complaint addressed to

SHO, Women Police Station, Jind seeking registration of a case of rape

against Pardeep s/o late Ishwar Singh, inter alia stating that she was

married to Pankaj son of late Ishwar Singh, resident of village Jalalpur

Kalan, District Jind, whereas sister of complainant is married to

1 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 15-08-2018 08:29:18 :::
CRM-M-48320-2017(OM) -2-

Pardeep, an elder brother of Pankaj; that both the sisters have got a son

each. In the complaint, it is alleged that Pardeep was having an evil eye

on the complainant and on the intervening night of 16/17 June, when

Pankaj had gone to fields for irrigation purpose and complainant was

sleeping in her room on first floor of the house, then Kitabo Devi,

mother-in-law of complainant came upstairs and got opened the door of

the room, thereafter, Pardeep entered in the room and had forcibly

sexual intercourse with the complainant against her wishes and after that

he went away therefrom giving threats to kill the complainant.

According to the complainant, she had told her mother-in-law that she

had not done good thing with her but to no effect; that when Pankaj –

husband of the complainant returned home, the complainant narrated the

incident to him but he rather threatened the complainant to keep quiet

and not to disclose this to any one, otherwise he would kill her; that the

complainant remained silent and subsequently, she had moved the

written complaint.

After registration of the FIR, the matter was investigated.

Accused were arrested in this case. Thereafter, the parties have said to

have entered into compromise.

A petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR

No.50 dated 11.8.2016, under Sections 376/498-A/34/506 IPC, Police

Station Women, Jind along with further proceedings arising therefrom,

has been filed on the basis of compromise, notice of which was given to

the respondents, who put in appearance.

Thereafter, vide order dated 9.3.2018, the trial Court was

directed to record statements of accused and affected persons and then to

2 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 15-08-2018 08:29:18 :::
CRM-M-48320-2017(OM) -3-

send report to this Court. Learned District Sessions Judge, Jind has

accordingly send the report along with statements recorded.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going

through the record.

Though as per various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court

and by a Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, compounding of offences in

matrimonial disputes is normally allowed. A dispute which are normally

for the offences under Section 406 IPC i.e. criminal breach of trust with

regard to dowry articles of the wife and Section 498-A IPC relating to

the offence of treating the wife with cruelty in connection with demand

of dowry, are said to be somewhat personal in nature. But when it comes

to offence under Section 376 IPC, which is a very serious offence, rather

it is an offence against the society, the culprit cannot be allowed to be let

off in the garb of resolution of a matrimonial dispute in an amicable

way. As stated the complainant and her sister had filed the petitions for

divorce with mutual consent. Though in majority of the cases, this Court

may quash the proceedings where parties settled their matrimonial

dispute but in the instant case, I do not find it proper to exercise inherent

power so as to quash the FIR for the offence under Section 376 IPC.

There are serious allegations of rape against Pardeep with Katabo Devi

and Pankaj abetting the same. Therefore, I find that it is not a fit case to

exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and to allow the parties to get

the FIR and other ancillary proceedings quashed keeping in view the

seriousness of allegations discussed above. It is stated that after

completion of investigation, challan has been filed and the trial has

started. The guilt of the accused shall be determined during the trial.

3 of 4
15-08-2018 08:29:18 :::
CRM-M-48320-2017(OM) -4-

The petition being without merit stands dismissed


9.8.2018 JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

4 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 15-08-2018 08:29:18 :::

Leave a Reply

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

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