SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sudhir vs Ut Of Chandigarh And Anr on 7 March, 2018

CRM-M-2460-2018 -1-


Date of decision: 07.03.2018

Sudhir …Petitioner


U.T. Chandigarh and another …Respondents


Present:- Mr. Jasbir Singh Mohri, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Addl. P.P., U.T., Chandigarh.

Mr. Nagar Singh, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.


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

Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 123 dated 05.08.2016,

registered under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Maloya,

U.T., Chandigarh (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising

therefrom in view of the compromise dated 15.01.2018 (Annexure P-2)

entered into between the parties.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the aforesaid FIR came to

be registered at the behest of the complainant/respondent No. 2 in which it

was stated that she was studying in 12th Class in a school situated in

Chandigarh. On 21.05.2016, one Sudhir son of Chander Pal took her to his

house on his motorcycle on the pretext that he wanted her to meet his family

members for the purpose of their marriage. On reaching the house of the

petitioner, he served her water and on drinking the same, she became

1 of 5
18-03-2018 00:49:35 :::
CRM-M-2460-2018 -2-

unconscious. When she regained conscious, she found herself nude and all

alone in the room as the petitioner had established physical relation with

her. It was on this background that the present FIR was registered.

However, now with the intervention of respectable persons, the dispute has

been amicably settled between the parties and they have entered into a

compromise. In fact, the parties have performed marriage on 26.08.2016 and

residing together as husband and wife happily.

3. By an order dated 22.01.2018, the parties were directed to

appear before the trial Court so that their statement could be recorded

regarding the genuineness of the compromise. The parties appeared before

the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Chandigarh. In

pursuance of the direction, a report has been received from the trial Court to

the effect that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any

pressure or coercion from any one and the same appears to be genuine one.

4. In normal circumstances, this Court would not entertain a

matter when the non compoundable offences are heinous and serious in

nature. In the instant case, the offence complained of is punishable under

Section 376 IPC which is an offence of grave nature. This Court is aware of

the fact that time and again it has been held that an offence under Section

376 IPC is a grievous offence and considered as an offence against the

society at large and thus, such matters should not be compromised. In the

eyes of law, the offence of rape is serious and non-compoundable and the

Courts should not in ordinary circumstances interfere and quash the FIR that

has been registered.

5. In a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 2014(6) SCC

2 of 5
18-03-2018 00:49:35 :::
CRM-M-2460-2018 -3-

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

noncompoundable 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.
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.”

6. 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

3 of 5
18-03-2018 00:49:35 :::
CRM-M-2460-2018 -4-

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
the possibility of a conviction being recorded has thus to be
ruled out.

6. 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.”

7. 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-compoundable

offences on the basis of compromise can be exercised.

8. 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. As has been held in Narinder Singh

Ors. case (supra) those cases where a settlement is arrived at immediately

after the alleged commission of the offence, the High Court may be liberal

in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings. Moreover, the

4 of 5
18-03-2018 00:49:36 :::
CRM-M-2460-2018 -5-

parties have performed marriage and residing together happily and it would

be in their interest if the FIR is quashed.

9. Consequently, keeping in view the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the present case and in view of the above ratios of law, this

petition is allowed and the FIR No. 123 dated 05.08.2016, registered under

Section 376 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Maloya, U.T.,

Chandigarh (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising out of

the same are quashed qua the petitioner herein.

07.03.2018 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE

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

5 of 5
18-03-2018 00:49:36 :::

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