Sukhpal Singh @ Sukhu vs State of Punjab and another

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

Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No.66 dated 06.07.2015

registered under Sections 452, 506, 376 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4

of POCSO Act at Police Station Bakshiwala, District Patiala (Annexure P/1)

and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the affidavit of

prosecutrix (Annexure P/3).

In brief, the facts of the case are that the instant FIR came to be

registered on 06.07.2015 on the statement of Baljit Kaur w/o Jagtar Singh,

in which she stated that she has three children, out of whom Mandeep Kaur

is eldest one, who is around 16 years old and studied in 8th class. The

complainant further mentioned that her daughter told her that around 04

months back, when her father had gone to Karnataka and you (her mother)

had gone to Bhakra Canal for bringing wood, at around 3.00 p.m. when she

returned from school and changing her clothes, their neighbour''s son

Sukhpal Singh came inside their house and had forcibly raped her. Sukhpal

Singh had threatened her that if she told about it to anyone, then he would

kill her and due to this reason, she remained quiet and now her stomach and

body remained heavy. The complainant allege that Sukhpal Singh had

entered their house and had forcibly raped her daughter.

Immediately after lodging of the FIR, the matter was

compromised between the parties on the intervention of respectables of the

village. The prosecutrix had swore in an affidavit to the effect that she had

love affair with the petitioner and now they wanted to marry each other. In

terms of the compromise, it was also agreed that the petitioner will perform

a marriage with the daughter of complainant Baljit Kaur. It is stated in the

petition that the matter has been compromised and that due to the

misunderstanding the case FIR was lodged by the complainant. It is prayed

that the FIR and all other proceedings taken thereafter be quashed in order

to bring an end to the litigation between the parties. Based on the said

compromise, the instant quashing petition was filed.

By an order dated 18.07.2016, 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 Addl. Sessions Judge at Patiala wherein, a statement was made by the

prosecutrix in which she stated that she did not want to pursue the FIR and

that she would like to marry the petitioner herein. Statement of the both

parents of the prosecutrix were also recorded stating that they have no

objection in case, their daughter marry the petitioner herein. On the same

date, the petitioner herein also stated that he was ready and willing to

perform marriage with the prosecutrix i.e. daughter of the complainant and

he would keep her as his legally wedded wife.

In normal circumstances, the 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 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.

In the instant case, since the matter was compromised, the

petitioner herein was allowed interim bail by this court in Criminal Misc.

No.M-39295 of 2016, allowing the petitioner and prosecutrix to solemnize

their marriage on 19.12.2016, which has since been solemnized, as would

be reflected from the certificate issued by Gurudwara Dashmesh Darbar

Sahib, Village Guthmadha, District Patiala. This court is informed by

learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 that after their

marriage, the parties are residing happily as husband and wife. This court is

of the opinion that in case, the proceedings are not allowed to be

compromised, the prosecutrix herself would be put to hardship and interest

of justice would not be met. Moreover, under these circumstances

continuance of criminal prosecution would be an exercise in futility, as the

chances of ultimate conviction are bleak.

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

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."

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 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."

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-

compoundable offences on the basis of compromise can be exercised.

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.

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.66 dated 06.07.2015 registered under

Sections 452, 506, 376 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of POCSO Act

at Police Station Bakshiwala, District Patiala and all subsequent

proceedings arising out of the same are quashed.