Dismissed

Sukhjinder Singh @ Tittu v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC29 May 2012CRM-M/30859/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition for quashing an FIR regarding a 1988 rape where one victim died, the petitionlee surrendered after evading arrest for 21 years claiming a compromise. The single judge dismissed the petition, holding that compelling societal offences cannot be quashed merely due to a settlement between individual parties, especially when it would mock the judiciary.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sukhjinder Singh @ Tittu Vs State of Punjab and… — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Criminal Misc.No.M-30859 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc.No.M-30859 of 2011

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: July 03,2012

¶6

Sukhjinder Singh @ Tittu

¶7

.....Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

State of Punjab and others

¶10

…..…Respondents

¶11

CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

¶12

Present: Mr.N.K.Banka,Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr.G.S.Brar, AAG, Punjab.

¶14

Mr.Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate with Mr.Arjun Lakhanpal, Advocate for the complainant.

¶15

DAYA CHAUDHARY,J.

¶16

The petitioner, who is an absconder in a rape case for the last more than twenty one years, has approached this Court through the present petition for quashing of FIR No.25 dated 29.1.1988,

¶17

Criminal Misc.No.M-30859 of 2011

¶18

¶19

under Sections 366,376,342,302,201 and 34 IPC registered at Police Station Bhogpur, Jalandhar.

¶20

Along with the petitioner, four others, namely, Narinder Singh, Jaswinder Singh, Rajbir Singh and Mohinder Singh, faced trial for the aforesaid offences and were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376,366,342 IPC and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment under Section 376 IPC. The petitioner absented himself from the court proceedings on 19.2.1990 and remained absent for over twenty one years. The statements of the prosecutrix and material witnesses were also recorded on 12.5.1989 in his

¶21

absence only. The petitioner, however, was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 18.5.1990. The convictions of the aforesaid four co-convicts were affirmed by the High Court vide judgment dated March 5, 2003 passed in two Criminal Appeal No.445SB of 1990 and Criminal Appeal No.449-SB of 1990.

¶22

Before adverting to the points raised in this petition it would be necessary to enumerate the brief facts of the case, which are as under:

¶23

Respondent No.4-complainant Semo, who was aged 15 years at that time, alongwith her friend, namely, Desho on 26.2.1988 at around 5.30 p.m. was

¶24

Criminal Misc.No.M-30859 of 2011

¶25

¶26

returning after collecting dry twigs from the fields and when they reached the field of sugarcane of Tara Singh, Lachman Singh inside the village Itta Badhi, Sukhijnder Singh @ Tittu and Mintu, servant of Kashmir Singh were standing in front of them with their scooter. Sukhjinder Singh @ Tittu and Mintu made them to sit on their scooter which was being driven by Sukhjinder Singh and took them by way of Chak Jhandu and village Lohara to the boundary of village Kingra Chauwala to a tubewell. On reaching there, while opening the door by Mintu, they were taken forcibly inside the room of tube well. Harwinder Singh @ Tony, Rajbir Singh, Rattan Singh and one more boy, who was called by the name of Bagga reached there. Rajbir went out for keeping a vigil. All the aforesaid persons had intercourse against their wishes. Prayer for release fell flat. After some time, Rajbir, who was kept for a vigil, also had sexual intercourse. The victims were raped in the room during whole night. On the next day, Sukhjinder Singh @ Tittu and Mintu made them to sit on their scooter and dropped them outside the village. The victims went to their house. Desho, aged 13/14 years, unable to tolerate the bestial acts and ultimately lost her life. Amrik Singh, father of Sukhjinder Singh @

¶27

Criminal Misc.No.M-30859 of 2011

¶28

¶29

Tittu, exerted pressure upon the father of Desho for cremation and did not allow him for informing the police. Semo also got scared and could not come out of house due to feeling of shame. The victim Semo was medically examined.

¶30

Investigation was commenced. Statement of respondent No.4-complaiannt Semo was recorded under Section 164 CrPC. On completion of investigation, a challan was filed under Sections 366,376,342, 302,201,34 IPC. The learned Magistrate committed the accused to the Court of Session. The case came up for trial before the learned trial Court, Jalandhar, who framed various charges against the accused but the main charge was under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. While framing the charge, the offences under Sections 302,201 IPC were deleted vide order dated 19.10.1988. The coconvict of the petitioner, namely, Jaswinder Singh,

¶31

Rajbir Singh, Narinder Singh and Mohinder Singh were convicted under Sections 366, 376,342,34 IPC by the trial Court vide judgment dated 14.11.1990. They filed appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence before the High Court which was also dismissed.

¶32

Criminal Misc.No.M-30859 of 2011

¶33

¶34

Now, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of FIR and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the premise of compromise.

¶35

Vide order dated 14.10.2011, while issuing notice of motion, case was adjourned for filing reply. Meantime, reply was filed by the State.

¶36

The main thrust of the argument of Mr.N.K.Banka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that since the compromise has been arrived at between the petitioner and the complainant, the FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed. He placed reliance on the decisions of High Courts as well as the Apex Court rendered in Sharan Deep Singh v. State (UT Chandigarh 2001(4) RCR (Criminal) 331, Tetri Devi v. Sukro Mahto & Ors. 2002 (3) FJCC 97, Shiv Shankar Lal and others v. State and others 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 625, Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab 2002(4) RCR (Criminal) 661, Deepa and others v. State of Punjab and another 2008(4) AICLR 426, Chander Mohan alias Bunti v. State of Haryana and ors. 2011(5) RCR (Criminal) 233, Surinder Kamboj and others v. State of Punjab and another 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 21, Talwinder Singh @ Laddi

¶37

Criminal Misc.No.M-30859 of 2011

¶38

¶39

and another v. State of Punjab and another 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 970, Harpal Singh @ Soni v. State of Haryana and others 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 459 and Subhash Chander v. State of Punjab 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) 353 wherein in the context of compromise in the matter of rape, the FIR and subsequent proceedings were quashed. On that basis, it has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is an exercise in futility to allow the complainant to complete the trial in the criminal Court. Learned counsel for the complainant also submits that the complainant has no objection if the FIR and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. He further submits that although the offence under Section 376 IPC is not compoundable but still this Court has inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC in the matter of quashing the FIR.

¶40

Learned senior counsel appearing for the complainant-respondent No.4 has endorsed the arguments made by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the soul of justice requires enhancement of social amity and reduces friction,

¶41

it is truly finest hour of justice in case the matter is being finally set at rest.

¶42

Criminal Misc.No.M-30859 of 2011

¶43

¶44

Mr. G.S.Brar, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, per contra, contended that from a plain reading of the FIR, it is unambiguous that the petitioner and his co-convicts quenched their lust by committing sexual intercourse with the victims, forced them to sit on their scooter and reached a room of tube-well, stopped the scooter, dragged the victims by using criminal force and raped turn by turn. Even one of the victims, namely, Desho was unable to tolerate the bestial acts and ultimately died. Amrik Singh, father of the petitioner, who was Sarpanch, did not allow the father of the victim-Desho to report the matter to the police. Even the co-convicts of the petitioner have been convicted by the trial Court. The appeal preferred to the High Court met the fate of dismissal. Moreover, the application moved under Section 311 CrPC for re-examination of the complainant was also dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 15.9.2011. The said order was challenged before the High Court which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 3.10.2011. What to talk of compromise, even the petitioner has no respect for court proceedings as he absented himself without any justification for a sufficiently long period of more than 21 years.

¶45

Criminal Misc.No.M-30859 of 2011 8

¶46

Refuting the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent No.4, he submits that Courts are reluctant in such like cases to quash the FIR, inasmuch, it is a crime against the society and not against a private individual. He placed reliance on the judgment rendered in Manoj Sharma v. State of Others (2008) 16 SCC 1 wherein in the context of crime against the society, it has been observed that the criminal proceedings should not be quashed while exercising the powers under Section 482 CrPC. Allowing this petition means conveying the wrong message to the Society if persons accused of committing such a heinous act of rape and even one of the victims had died due to lust of the petitioner and co-convicts. He did not surrender for almost 21 years, in that eventuality, if the criminal proceeding are quashed, it would be mockery of the judicial process and set a wrong precedent in the society.

¶47

Having given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties, I find no substance in the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent No.4.

¶48

Criminal Misc.No.M-30859 of 2011

¶49

¶50

It was the dark day for the complainantrespondent No.4 when she was raped by the petitioner and co-convicts on the intervening nigher of 26/27.2.1988. Firstly, the victims, namely, Semo and Desho were forcibly made to sit on the scooter and on reaching the destination, they were pinned down. The victims-minor could not escape from the clutches of the accused being six in numbers. One of the victims Desho had lost her life due to the suffering caused to her by the petitioner and the other co-convicts. Even Amrik Singh, father of the petitioner, who was Sarpanch, did not allow the father of deceased-Desho to report the matter to the police and exerted pressure upon him for cremation.

¶51

In the instant case, the matter between the parties have been set at rest on the basis of compromise. The question which is required to be answered is whether the power which lies with this court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised or not.

¶52

The First Information Report pertains to the year 1988. The petitioner evaded his arrest for the last more than twenty one years. Co-convicts of

¶53

Criminal Misc.No.M-30859 of 2011

¶54

¶55

the petitioner have been convicted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 14.11.1990. Even the appeal met with the fate of dismissal vide judgment dated March 5, 2003 passed by this Court in two Criminal Appeal No.445-SB of 1990 and Criminal Appeal No.449-SB of 1990. There is nothing on record to suggest that the co-convicts of the petitioner have filed any Special Leave Petition or availed of any other remedy acquitting them from charges.

¶56

Before proceeding further in the matter

¶57

and to decide the controversy, it would be necessary to go through the material available on record.

¶58

PW2 Krishan Kanta, Senior Medical Officer,

¶59

PHC, Kala Bakra deposed before the Court on 1.3.1989. The relevant portion of the evidence is reproduced as under:

¶60

“1. Two abrasions of 2 cm each on ulnar aspect of left forearm in the middle. Brown scab was present on both.

¶61

2. Fresh blood stained on the underwear was present. Four lenior abrasions measuring 10 cm 9.5 cm., 7 cm, 8 cm on the

¶62

Criminal Misc.No.M-30859 of 2011

¶63

¶64

inner and alterior side of right thigh. Scab brown colour was present on all.

¶65

3. 5 lenior abrasions weigh brown scab present on inner and anterior surface of left thigh measuring 11 cm, 9.5 cm. and 8 cm.

¶66

4. Lebia, majora and labia minors were blood stained in red colour. Fresh bleeding was present at external vaginal orifice, hymen torn, admits two fingers with difficulty. No laceration on vagina, curcice healthy, uterus anteverted, nulliparous size.

¶67

Posterior fornice contained blood discharge. Vaginal swabs taken from it and sent for chemical examination. Ex.PB is the correct carbon copy of the Medico Legal report prepared by me. On the basis of my observation stated above, I can say that Semo was subjected to sexual intercourse.”

¶68

Semo-complainant while appearing as PW4 deposed unfavourable to the petitioner and co-

¶69

Criminal Misc.No.M-30859 of 2011

¶70

¶71

convicts. The relevant portion of the statement of PW4 is reproduced as under:

¶72

“About more than a year back, I and Desho with fuel wood were coming to our village Manak Rai at about 5 p.m. and when reached near sugarcane field of Tara Singh of village Ittan Bedi we saw two persons with a scooter, namely, Sukhinder and Mohinder of village Mank Rai and Dhingra who are present now in the Court. These two accused showed us knife and put us on the scooter which was driven by Sukhjinder and took us to Kingra to a tubewell motor in the area of village Kingra after passing through villages Chak & Lohar…”

¶73

…. Desho was younger to me. I am aged 15 years. Desho died during the night falling the day on which were left by the said two accused on scooter on the boundary of our village.

¶74

The father of Desho had also gone to the Sarpanch of the village. House of Desho’s father adjoins our house. Sarpanch was informed about possibility of

¶75

Criminal Misc.No.M-30859 of 2011

¶76

¶77

death of Desho because of her condition being serious. Then she died.

¶78

PW10-Dr. Jaswinder Singh deposed before

¶79

the Court that the petitioner was sexually potent and fit for intercourse.

¶80

If the aforesaid evidence is accepted in its entirety, it suggests that sexual intercourse

¶81

had been done with Semo and Desho. Although the trial in the case of the present petitioner is to commence afresh but still it cannot be said that there is no prima facie evidence against the petitioner.

¶82

Now the petitioner comes with the plea that the matter has been settled and, therefore, the present petition for quashing of FIR may be allowed. For the sake of convenience, in case the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner are accepted, what would be the fate of the co-convicts of the petitioner who are languishing in jail on account of their convictions, particularly, when they had already lost their battle upto High Court. In such like circumstances, the argument of learned counsel does not hold water. If the offence for which a prosecution is being launched is an offence

¶83

Criminal Misc.No.M-30859 of 2011

¶84

¶85

against the society and not merely an individual wrong, then criminal proceedings cannot be quashed. The Court will be failing in its duty if crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. That being so, the offence committed by the petitioner is against the society and, therefore, the compromise arrived at between the complainant and the petitioner has no effect in the present petition. Therefore, powers conferred under Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked for such like offences in such like circumstances.

¶86

Even the application for re-examination of the prosecutrix was dismissed by the trial Court. The findings recorded by the trial Court were not disturbed by the High Court and vide order dated 3.10.2011, this Court allowed to withdraw the petition.

¶87

The petitioner has surrendered before the Court after evading for over 21 years, seeks quashing of FIR. The person, who evades his arrest for over 21 years, has now approached this Court. In case this petition is allowed, it would be a

¶88

Criminal Misc.No.M-30859 of 2011 15

¶89

slap on the face of a judicial system, which cannot be allowed because it makes mockery of the system.

¶90

Reliance placed on the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner has no application on the facts and circumstances of the present case, inasmuch as, the facts of the present case are entirely different from the judgments cited.

¶91

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the

¶92

present petition being devoid of any merit, is

¶93

hereby dismissed.

¶94

It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove shall have no bearing on the merits of the case while deciding it.

¶95

July 03,2012 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) KD JUDGE

Sukhjinder Singh @ Tittu v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sukhjinder Singh @ Tittu v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Singh @ Maqbool Vs State of Punjab

Women Justice & Equality Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Naresh Kumar etc. Vs State of Haryana etc.

Bhola Singh Bhatti & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

M/S Forex Fastners (P) Ltd. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Amar Singh Chahal and Ors. Vs V.K. Singh and Ors.