SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ranjit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 12 March, 2020

CRM-M No.20343 of 2019 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No.20343 of 2019
Date of Decision:12.03.2020

Ranjit Singh …Petitioner
Versus

State of Punjab and another …Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:- Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, DAG, Punjab.

None 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.84 dated 13.12.2018

registered under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station

Kahnuwan, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur (Annexure P-1) and 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 an FIR came to be

registered on 13.12.2018 under Sections 376 IPC at Police Station

Kahnuwan, Tehsil and Distgrict Gurdaspur in which it was stated that

prosecutrix-respondent No.2 was doing B.Sc Nursing from Jathedar Ujjagar

Singh Sekhwan Institute. She was residing outside the village at dera and

dera of petitioner-Ranjit Singh son of Gurdev Singh, resident of Malian was

situated near her dera. She came into contact with Ranjit Singh while she

used to go to school and they fell in love. Petitioner on false promise of

1 of 6
22-03-2020 09:01:27 :::
CRM-M No.20343 of 2019 -2-

marriage made physical relations with respondent No.2 by calling her to his

house but thereafter refused to marry her. Therefore, legal action be taken

against petitioner-Ranjit Singh.

3. However, after lodging of the FIR, petitioner has solemnized

marriage with respondent No.2 on 11.03.2019 according to Hindu rites and

ceremonies against the wishes of their parents and this Court had granted

them protection vide order dated 14.03.2019 passed in CRM-M No.11881

of 2019. They are living together happily as husband and wife and out of

the wedlock, a son has been born. Therefore, respondent No.2 being legally

wedded wife of the petitioner does not want to pursue the FIR and she has

no objection if the FIR lodged by her against the petitioner is quashed.

4. By an order dated 06.09.2019, parties were directed to appear

before the Illaqa Magistrate so that their statement could be recorded

regarding the genuineness of the compromise. The parties appeared before

the Illaqa Magistrate wherein a statement of the complainant was recorded

on 16.09.2019 that she did not want to pursue the FIR.

5. In normal circumstances, the Court would not entertain a matter

when the non compoundable offences are heinous in nature and against the

public. In the instant case, the offence, complained of, is under Section 376

IPC, which is an offence of grave nature. In the eyes of law, the offence of

rape is serious and non-compoundable and the Courts should not in the

ordinary circumstances interfere and quash the FIR that has been registered.

However, there are always exceptions to the normal rules and certain

categories of cases, which deserve consideration specially when it is case of

love affair between teenagers and on fear of the society and pressure from

2 of 6
22-03-2020 09:01:28 :::
CRM-M No.20343 of 2019 -3-

the community one party alleges rape, cases where the accused and the

victim are well known to each other and allegation of rape is levelled only

because the accused refused to marry, as well as the age, educational

maturity and the mental capacity, sequences of the same ought to be kept in

mind when inclined to interfere.

6. In the instant case, a complaint came to be made in which it

was stated that accused had on the pretext of marrying the complainant had

committed rape and later on refused to marry her. However, later on, the

accused, who is petitioner herein, has solemnized marriage with the

respondent No.2-complainant and they are living now as husband and wife.

Moreover, with the intervention of respectables, a compromise has also

been entered into between them whereby it is decided by the complainant

that the FIR would not be pursued.

7. 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 non-

compoundable 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.

3 of 6
22-03-2020 09:01:28 :::
CRM-M No.20343 of 2019 -4-

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.”

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

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

4 of 6
22-03-2020 09:01:28 :::
CRM-M No.20343 of 2019 -5-

the possibility of a conviction being recorded has thus to

be ruled out. 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. We see from the impugned order

that the learned Judge has confused a compounding of an

offence with the quashing of proceedings. The outer limit

of Rs.250/- which has led to the dismissal of the

application is an irrelevant factor in the later case. We

accordingly allow the appeal and in the peculiar facts of

the case, direct that FIR No.155 dated 17th November

2001 P.S. Kotwali, Amritsar and all proceedings

connected therewith shall be deemed to be quashed.”

9. Even 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 policy, the power to quash proceedings involving non-

5 of 6
22-03-2020 09:01:28 :::
CRM-M No.20343 of 2019 -6-

compoundable offences on the basis of compromise can be exercised.

10. 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. The complainant in her statement

before the JMIC, Gurdaspur on 16.09.2019 stated that she has solemnized

marriage with petitioner herein and she is residing with him as husband and

wife at her matrimonial home. Out of the wedlock, a son has been born and

therefore, she does not want to proceed further with this case against the

petitioner and she has no objection if FIR lodged by her against the

petitioner is quashed by this Court.

11. Consequently, in view of the above, this petition is allowed and

the FIR No.84 dated 13.12.2018 registered under Section 376 of Indian

Penal Code at Police Station Kahnuwan, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur and

all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same qua petitioner are

quashed.

(JAISHREE THAKUR)
JUDGE
March 12, 2020
Pankaj*
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether reportable Yes/No

6 of 6
22-03-2020 09:01:28 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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