This judgment disposed of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an FIR for attempted rape. The court held that due to the heinous nature of the crime, the FIR could not be quashed even though a compromise was reached between the parties.
Petition for quashing of FIR No.30 and consequential proceedings rejected and dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. Misc. No. M-16859 of 2012
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-16859 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.09.2012
Balraj Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: - None for the petitioner. Ms. Jaspreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab.
PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.30 dated 6.4.2012, registered under Sections 452/323/376/511/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Ghanie Ke Bangar, Police District Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur, along with all consequential proceedings arising out of it, on the basis of compromise dated 7.4.2012 (Annexure P-2).
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8989 of 2010 titled Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another decided on 24.09.2012 in para No.57 has held as under: -
“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.
Crl. Misc. No. M-16859 of 2012
-2-
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. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing
Crl. Misc. No. M-16859 of 2012
-3-
the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”
Allegations against the petitioner are that he alongwith his coaccused trespassed into the house of the complainant with the intention to commit rape upon her. The petitioner made an attempt to outrage the modesty and commit rape upon the complainant. Though the complainant escaped the commitment of rape due to the alarm raised by her sister but the complainant sustained injuries. The allegations against the petitioner are of serious nature and, therefore, in view of the aforecited judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the FIR cannot be quashed.
Dismissed.
(Paramjeet Singh) Judge
September 26, 2012 R.S.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash an FIR for attempted rape on the basis of a compromise despite the serious nature of the offence.
Whether the Supreme Court guidelines allow quashing of FIRs involving heinous offences even after settlement between parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and anotherReferred¶15
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8989 of 2010, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Balraj Singh
State of Punjab
PARAMJEET SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
