Ankit 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. 51 dated 25.02.2024 (Annexure P-1) registered under Section 376 IPC at Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 09.07.2024 (Annexure P-2), arrived between the parties. Pursuant to the order dated 17.07.2024 passed by this Court, the parties have appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dera Bassi, to get their statements recorded. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dera Bassi, has submitted his report along with copies of statements of the parties vide letter dated 02.09.2024, duly forwarded by the learned I/C District and Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar.

A perusal of the above said report would show that the parties have appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dera Bass and suffered statements with respect to the compromise which have been found to be genuine, voluntary, without any threat or coercion. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the complainant/victim/respondent No.2 herein is about 28 years of age. As per the statement of the complainant herself in the FIR, she had met the petitioner in the year 2018. In 2019 they had developed consensual physical relations, which continued upto 2024. It is the allegation in the FIR that the petitioner has now in the year 2024 refused to solemnize marriage with the complainant and therefore offence under Section 376 IPC is made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of initiation of relationship between the parties, the complainant was 28 years of age whereas the petitioner was only 18 years of age. Learned counsel further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in XXXX vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another 2024 SCC OnLine SC 241 has held that false promise to marry itself does not constitute offence under Section 376 IPC. Now better sense has prevailed between the parties and in order to live peacefully, parties have entered into compromise dated

09.7.2024 (Annexure P-2), according to which, both the parties have agreed not to proceed further with the FIR in question. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the only accused in the FIR and has never

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the file. After perusing the report submitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dera Bassi, 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. 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, a complaint came to be made in which it was stated that petitioner and respondent No. 2 were in a consensual

relationship with each other. Moreover, with the intervention of respectables, a compromise has also been entered into between them whereby it is decided by the complainant 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. 51 dated 25.02.2024 (Annexure P-1) registered under Section 376 IPC at Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 09.07.2024 (Annexure P-2), arrived between the parties, are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioner.

25.11.2024 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 241 CRM-M-33704-2024 Date of Decision: 25.11.2024 Ankit .… Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Present: - Ms. Rishu Madan, AAG, Punjab. Ms. Kamlesh, Advocate for respondent No. 2.