Gurdeep Nigah v. State of Punjab and Another

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No. 104 dated 15.12.2018 (Annexure P-1) registered under Section 376 IPC at Police Station Satnampura, District Kapurthala and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 06.03.2019 (Annexure P-2), arrived between the parties. Pursuant to the order dated 05.04.2019 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the parties have appeared before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara, to get their statements recorded. Learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, has submitted his report along with copies of statements of the parties vide

letter dated 07.05.2019, duly forwarded by the learned I/C District and Sessions Judge, Kapurthala. A perusal of the above said report would show that the parties have appeared before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara and suffered statements with respect to the compromise which have been found to be genuine, voluntary, without any threat or coercion. Perusal of the file reveals that the challan has not been presented in the case; compromise between the parties has been effected; marriage between the petitioner and respondent has been solemnized as is evident from Marriage Certificate (Annexure P-3, Colly.) and the photographs (Annexure P-4). On instructions from ASI Kuldeep Singh, learned counsel for the State affirms the above facts to be correct. Learned counsel for the State has also informed that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent has also been registered and handed over a copy of the Marriage Certificate issued by the Registrar of Marriages dated

27.06.2019 (alongwith copies of statements recorded before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara), which is taken on record. Order sheets shows that from the last three date i.e.

07.08.2023, 12.02.2024 and 12.08.2024 learned arguing counsel for the petitioner has not put in appearance and it is only on 12.02.2024, learned proxy counsel appeared and sought adjournment. Today also petitioner is

After perusing the report submitted by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara; and also in view of the admitted facts/marriage of the parties, this Court finds that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. Since the matter has been settled and the parties have decided to live in peace, this Court feels that in order to secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed. Heard. 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 due to fear of the society and pressure from 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. In the instant case, the petitioner and the victim/respondent No. 2 herein were in consensual relationship and now they have solemnized

marriage with each other and are residing happily together, therefore, it is decided by the complainant/respondent No. 2 that the FIR would not be pursued. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 2014(6) SCC 466, 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. xxx xxx xxx xxx

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.

¶6We 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.

¶7We 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."

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in "Kulwinder Singh and others Vs State of Punjab", 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it is held that High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the proceedings where the High Court is of the opinion that the same is required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another", 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, had also observed that in order to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court, inherent power can be used by this Court to quash criminal proceedings in which a compromise has been effected. The relevant portion of para 57 of the said judgment is reproduced here-in-below:- "57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to

be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court."

Reference can also be made to a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prashant vs. State of NCT of Delhi, arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2793 of 2024, decided on

20.11.2024, as per which consensual physical relationship between two adults does not constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC, on the pretext of marriage. In view of what has been discussed here-in-above, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 104 dated 15.12.2018 (Annexure P-1) registered under Section 376 IPC at Police Station Satnampura, District Kapurthala and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 06.03.2019 (Annexure P-2), arrived between the parties, are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioner.

14.11.2024 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 236 CRM-M-14876-2019 Date of Decision: 14.11.2024 Gurdeep Nigah .… Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA None for the petitioner. Present: - Ms. Rishu Madan, AAG, Punjab. Mr. DR Punia, Advocate for the complainant.