SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Varinder Kumar And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 13 March, 2018

CRM-M-29320-2017 -1-


Date of decision: 13.03.2018

Varinder Kumar and another …Petitioners


State of Punjab and another …Respondents


Present:- Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Mr. A. S. Sandhu, Addl. A. G., Punjab.

Mr. Gulzar Mohammad, Advocate
for respondent No. 2/complainant.


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

Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 277 dated 19.07.2017,

registered under Sections 376, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at

Police Station Jodhewal, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) all subsequent

proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (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 her eldest sister Mahinder Kaur was married to Baljit Kumar

s/o Salag Ram resident of Ludhiana and in-laws of her sister used to visit

her house very often. During this period, she and Varinder, brother-in-law

of her sister, started liking each other and Varinder told her family that he

wanted to marry her, however, the petitioner made physical relationship

1 of 5
18-03-2018 06:57:20 :::
CRM-M-29320-2017 -2-

with her on the pretext of marriage and did not perform marriage with her. It

was on this background that the instant FIR was got 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. As per the terms of the compromise, the petitioner has now

performed marriage with the complainant and they are residing together as

husband and wife happily.

3. By an order dated 09.01.2018, 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 JMIC at Ludhiana. In pursuance of the direction, a report has been

received from JMIC at Ludhiana, stating 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. It is also reported that no PO

proceeding is pending against either of the parties.

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 includes an offence

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

2 of 5
18-03-2018 06:57:22 :::
CRM-M-29320-2017 -3-

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

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

3 of 5
18-03-2018 06:57:22 :::
CRM-M-29320-2017 -4-

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
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

4 of 5
18-03-2018 06:57:22 :::
CRM-M-29320-2017 -5-

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

per the terms of the compromise, the parties have solemnized marriage with

each other and they are now residing together as husband and wife happily,

hence, it would be in their welfare if the present 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. 277 dated 19.07.2017, registered under

Sections 376, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station

Jodhewal, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings

arising out of the same are quashed qua the petitioners herein.

13.03.2018 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE

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

5 of 5
18-03-2018 06:57:22 :::

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.


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