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 :::