Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amrinder Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 10 March, 2021225
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-39879 of 2019 (O&M)
Decided on:- March 10, 2021.
Amrinder Singh and others
………Petitioners.
Versus
The State of Punjab and another
………Respondents.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA.
*****
Present:- Mr. Rajesh K. Dadwal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Manreet Singh Nagra, A.A.G., Punjab.
None for respondent No.2.
HARI PAL VERMA, J. (Oral)
The matter has been taken up for hearing through video
conferencing due to outbreak of COVID-19.
CRM-27554-2020
Documents i.e. copy of order dated 18.09.2019 passed by this
Court in the main case (Annexure P-5), copy of certificate dated 30.06.2018
(Annexure P-6), copy of passport of petitioner No.1 (Annexure P-7), copy of
judgment dated 04.03.2020 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Zira, District Ferozepur (Annexure P-8) and photographs
(Annexure P-9) are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
CRM stands disposed of.
1 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 25-08-2021 03:01:03 :::
-2-
CRM-M-39879 of 2019
CRM-7114-2021
The copy of judgment dated 19.01.2018 (Annexure P-10) passed
by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-31825 of 2017 titled as
Deepak Versus State of Haryana and another and the copy of judgment
dated 05.03.2020 (Annexure P-11) passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in CRM-M-47266 of 2019 titled as Pankaj @ Sikandar Kumar Versus
State of U.T., Chandigarh and another are taken on record, subject to all just
exceptions.
CRM stands disposed of.
CRM-M-39879-2019
The petitioners have filed present petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.84 dated 05.08.2018 under Sections 376, 420
and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Mehtiana, District Hoshiarpur
(Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis
of compromise deed dated 07.09.2019 (Annexure P-2).
The aforesaid FIR was registered against the petitioner at the
behest of respondent No.2-complainant. As per the FIR, the prosecutrix-
complainant had gone to Singapore in December, 2014 on maid work visa,
where she worked as a child care-taker in Clementi city. There, she met with
petitioner No.1 Amrinder Singh. Since the petitioner No.1 and respondent
No.2-prosecutrix belong to the State of Punjab, they became friendly.
Petitioner No.1 projected himself as unmarried and he proposed the
prosecutrix-respondent No.2 for marriage to which the prosecutrix had stated
that she would like to talk with her mother about the marriage proposal. One
2 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 25-08-2021 03:01:03 :::
-3-
CRM-M-39879 of 2019
day, petitioner No.1 took the prosecutrix to a hotel and he booked a room
there and committed rape upon her on the pretext of marriage. Thereafter, she
was taken to various places, where the offence of rape was committed. On
04.11.2017, petitioner No.1 brought her (prosecutrix) to his village, where
they resided in the house of petitioner No.1. The prosecutrix asked the
petitioner No.1 to solemnise marriage as per the religious rites and rituals, but
the petitioner No.1 and his family members kept on putting off the matter on
one pretext or the other. However, in order to satisfy the prosecutrix,
petitioner No.1 had organized a reception party on 26.11.2017 in his house,
where the members of both families came. Later on, the prosecutrix came to
know that petitioner No.1 is already married with one Tanya resident of
Patiala and had not taken divorce from her (Tanya).
Since this petition was filed for quashing of F.I.R. on the basis of
compromise, this Court vide order dated 18.09.2019 had directed the parties
to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court to get their respective
statements recorded with regard to compromise and the Court was directed to
send its report qua genuineness of the compromise.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the parties had appeared before
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hoshiarpur and got their statements
recorded on 04.11.2019. On the basis of the statements so recorded by the
parties, learned Magistrate has submitted the report dated 27.11.2019 to the
effect that the compromise is entered without any fear or favour and the same
has been entered into between the parties of their free will and without any
coercion or pressure.
3 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 25-08-2021 03:01:03 :::
-4-
CRM-M-39879 of 2019
Though no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent
No.2-complainant Harvinder Kaur, but this Court finds that it would not cause
any prejudice to her as she has already made her statement before learned
Magistrate on 04.11.2019 in support of compromise. Her statement so
recorded by learned Magistrate on 04.11.2019 reads as under:
“Stated that on my statement one FIR no.0084 dated
05.8.2018 u/s 376, 420, 120-B IPC was registered at PS
Mehtiana District Hoshiarpur against the accused namely
Amrinder Singh s/o Pritam Singh, Pritam Singh s/o Pooran
Singh, Paramjeet Kaur w/o Pritam Singh and Gajjan Singh s/o
Pooran Singh all r/o village Sillevind Tehsil Zira District
Ferozepur. With the intervention of village Panchayats I have
effected compromise dated 19 July 2019 with the accused which
is annexed with petition before Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana
High Court. All the misunderstandings between me and accused
Amrinder Singh have been clarified. Copy of compromise is
Ex.P1. copy of affidavit given by me before Hon’ble Punjab and
Haryana High Court is Ex.P2. I do not have any ill will against
accused persons and said compromise has been entered by me
with my own free will and without any coercion/undue influence
from the other side. The above said mentioned FIR may kindly be
quashed on the basis of compromise.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are staying together as husband and
wife. Even the marriage between petitioner No.1 Amrinder Singh and Tanya
has already been dissolved by way of decree of divorce by way of mutual
consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He has referred
to the copy of judgment dated 04.03.2020 passed by learned Additional Civil
4 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 25-08-2021 03:01:03 :::
-5-
CRM-M-39879 of 2019
Judge (Senior Division), Zira, District Ferozepur (Annexure P-8) in support
of his contention.
He has relied upon the judgments (Annexures P-10 and P-11)
passed by this Court in Deepak’s case (supra) and Pankaj @ Sikandar
Kumar’s case (supra), whereby the FIRs in those cases registered inter alia
under Section 376 IPC were quashed on the basis of compromise.
Learned State counsel has argued that though the petitioner No.1
and the respondent No.2-prosecutrix have solemnised marriage with each
other, but it being the offence under Section 376 IPC, the FIR cannot be
quashed even on the basis of compromise.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the inherent jurisdiction of the Court
can be exercised in order to give effect to an order under the Cr.PC or to
prevent the abuse of process of law or to secure the ends of justice. In Inder
Mohan Goswami Versus State of Uttaranchal (2007) 12 SCC 1, while
underlining the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Apex Court observed in
paragraph Nos.23 and 24 of the judgment as under:
“23. This Court in a number of cases has laid down the scope
and ambit of courts’ powers under Section 482 CrPC. Every
High Court has inherent powers to act ex debito justitiae to do
real and substantial justice, for the administration of which
alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.
Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised:
(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court, And
(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
5 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 25-08-2021 03:01:03 :::
-6-
CRM-M-39879 of 2019
24. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide
have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution
and only when exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid
down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the
advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to
injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court
would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent
powers in absence of specific provisions in the statute.”
Similarly, in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992
Supp (1) SCC 35, Hon’ble the Apex Court has conducted an elaborate study
of the situations where the Court may exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction
and laid down a list of examples whereby quashing may be appropriate. In the
said case it was noted that quashing may be appropriate where:
“102(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
xx xx xx xx xx
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted
with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused
and with a view to spite him due to private and personal
grudge.”
The law on the point of quashing of FIRs dealing with non-
compoundable offences on the basis of compromise has been laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in plethora of judgments. As held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. are much more wider than
that under section 320 Cr.P.C. The underlying object of the High Court while
6 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 25-08-2021 03:01:03 :::
-7-
CRM-M-39879 of 2019
exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in such cases, as laid down in
Narinder Singh Versus State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, must be to meet
the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of law before any court.
The Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Laxmi Narayan
2019(5) SCC 688 has laid down that the power conferred under Section 482
of the Code, to quash the criminal proceedings for non-compoundable
offences, is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involves heinous
and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape,
dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact
on society. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely
because there is a mention of such offence in the FIR. It would be open to the
High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of the offence is there for
the sake of it or the prosecution agencies have collected sufficient evidence,
which if proved, would lead to framing of charge and the conviction,
ultimately.
As far as the offence of rape is concerned, Hon’ble Supreme
Court in State of M.P. Versus Madan Lal 2015 (7) SCC 681 after
considering Shimbhu and Anr. Versus State of Haryana 2014 (13) SCC 318,
has reiterated that rape is a non-compoundable offence and being an offence
against the society at large, it cannot be left for the parties to compromise and
settle. The Court has delivered such a ruling, doubting the genuineness of the
compromise and considering the fact that the perpetrator of crime accedes to
enter into wedlock with the victim in order to put pressure upon her in an
adroit manner.
7 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 25-08-2021 03:01:03 :::
-8-
CRM-M-39879 of 2019
In the background of the present case when the parties have
solemnised marriage and the matter has been compromised between the
parties and the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are staying together as
husband and wife, this Court finds that the present is not one of those cases
wherein the allegations are of extreme depravity, perversity and cruelty exist.
In order to reach the ends of justice, this Court finds that the present is a fit
case, so as to exercise the powers vested in this Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. In fact, continuation of the proceedings before the trial Court in the
instant FIR qua the petitioners would be total abuse of the process of law. The
continuation of such proceedings would not only be wastage of time, but it
would cause unnecessary burden on the functioning of trial Court, of course,
in the background of peculiar facts as emerged in the present case.
In the present case, the prosecutrix has made a statement before
the trial Court that she is not desirous of prosecuting the accused persons any
further. Obviously, the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have solemnised
marriage and are staying together. Therefore, the chances of conviction of the
petitioners in the case are quite bleak, as the prosecutrix is not likely to
support the case of prosecution, as is evident from her statement made before
learned Magistrate.
Thus, considering the compromise entered into between the
parties and following the principles laid down by the Full Bench judgment of
this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and
another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and approved by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and others (2012) 10
8 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 25-08-2021 03:01:03 :::
-9-
CRM-M-39879 of 2019
SCC 303 as well as in the light of the judgments passed by this Court in
Deepak’s case (supra) and Pankaj @ Sikandar Kumar’s case (supra), the
present petition is allowed and the of FIR No.84 dated 05.08.2018 under
Sections 376, 420 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Mehtiana,
District Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise deed
dated 07.09.2019 (Annexure P-2).
(HARI PAL VERMA)
March 10, 2021 JUDGE
Yag Dutt
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: No
9 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 25-08-2021 03:01:03 :::
Comments