Allowed

Jasbir Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC30 May 2013CRM-M/12813/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR for rape and kidnapping. Witness affidavits confirmed the victim voluntarily married the accused and lived happily with him. The court held that the inherent power to quash non-compoundable offences extends beyond matrimonial cases to prevent abuse of process and secure justice.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.148 dated 28.7.2012 and all subsequent proceedings for offences under sections 363, 366, 376 read with 120-B IPC are quashed.

Jasbir Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

Crl. Misc. No.M-12813 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-12813 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 30^th , 2013

¶5

Jasbir Singh and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶7

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶8

2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶9

Present Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶10

Ms. Anmol Grewal, A.A.G, Punjab, for the State.

¶11

Ms. Shivya Sehgal, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3.

¶12

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶13

This petition under the provisions of 482 Cr.P.C. has been brought by Jasbir Singh, Dalbir Singh, Sukha Singh and Gurmit Kaur for quashing of FIR No.148 dated 28.7.2012 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Sadar, Amritsar, District Amritsar City for an offence punishable under sections 363, 366, 376 read with section 120-B IPC alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same on the basis of compromise [Annexure P2].

¶14

While issuing notice of motion, the parties were directed to appear before learned Illaqa Magistrate on 14.5.2013 for getting their

¶15

¶16

Crl. Misc. No.M-12813 of 2013

¶17

statements recorded in support of the compromise. In the communication received from Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar dated 29.5.2013, it has been mentioned that neither the petitioners nor the complainant appeared before the court on 14.5.2013 for recording of their statements.

¶18

It is a case registered on the complaint of Upinder Singh, the complainant. His allegations have been that his daughter Simranjit Kaur, respondent no. 3, aged 16 years, who was studying in 10+1 in Senior Secondary School, Mall Road, Amritsar, had gone on 25.6.2012 for attending tuition classes, but did not return. He suspected Jasbir Singh to be the person who kidnapped her.

¶19

Upinder Singh has filed his short reply by way of affidavit stating that he had lodged this FIR. He has conceded in the reply that his daughter Simranjit Kaur has solemnized a run-away marriage with Jasbir Singh, petitioner No.1. He has admitted that she had willfully and voluntarily solemnized the marriage with Jasbir Singh and that he had lodged the FIR on account of a mistake. He has also admitted that his daughter Simranjit Kaur is now living happily with Jasbir Singh as his wife.

¶20

Simranjit Kaur, respondent No. 3 has also appeared with her counsel Ms. Shivya Sehgal, Advocate, and has filed short reply by way of her affidavit. She has also stated that she had voluntarily solemnized marriage with Jasbir Singh. She has added that she had been with Jasbir Singh in seeking protection for their life and personal liberty by making a petition before this court. She has also added that she made a statement before this court to the effect that she had voluntarily

¶21

¶22

Crl. Misc. No.M-12813 of 2013

¶23

solemnized marriage with Jasbir Singh. She has lastly stated that she is living happily with Jasbir Singh.

¶24

Though, the offence punishable under section 376 IPC is an offence against the society and normally an FIR for the offence should not be quashed on the basis of compromise, yet it is a different kind of case where Jasbir Singh, petitioner No.1 and Simranjit Kaur, respondent No.3 claim to have gone out of their own will and voluntarily solemnized a marriage between them. They had even sought protection of their life and liberty from this court and had been granted the said relief. Twist in the facts becomes more clear when it is seen that the parents of the girl have now agreed to the marriage and are no longer unhappy with the same. This is evident from the short reply of Upinder Singh, respondent No.2.

¶25

In these circumstances, when petitioner No.1, Jasbir Singh had married respondent No. 3 and had been living together as husband and wife, there can be no question of commission of any rape. The circumstances on the record also make it clear that no prima facie case has been there for the offence punishable under sections 363, 366 and 120-B IPC against the petitioners.

¶26

It is common knowledge that the compromise arrived at between the parties washes away all the grievances of the warring factions and pave way for normal relations in future between them. Taking restoration of peace and harmonious relations between the parties and order in the society as the prime concerns of law, it has been held by this court in Dharambir Vs. State of Haryana, 2005 (3) RCR

¶27

¶28

Crl. Misc. No.M-12813 of 2013

¶29

(Criminal) 426 that a non compoundable matrimonial offence could be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties. However, the said decision left a gap as it did not cover the cases other than the cases for matrimonial offences. A larger Bench of five Hon`ble Judges of this court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 took the following decision with regard to the other non-compoundable offences:-

¶30

“29. The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.”

¶31

The FIRs/complaints in non-compoundable offences could, therefore, be quashed on the basis of compromise. It is so because after compromise, no evidence supporting the prosecution is possible to come on the record and possibility of conviction of the accused becomes bleak. However, before accepting the petition and quashing the proceedings, the court has to satisfy itself that the compromise is just and fair in which no party is taking undue benefit. The compromise in hand not only satisfies the above said requirements, but also appears to be securing the ends of justice. I, therefore, find that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties without their being any pressure on anyone. Hence, the petition is allowed and FIR No.148 dated 28.7.2012 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Sadar, Amritsar, District

¶32

¶33

Crl. Misc. No.M-12813 of 2013

¶34

Amritsar City for an offence punishable under sections 363, 366, 376 read with section 120-B IPC alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same is quashed.

¶35

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE May 30^th , 2013 som

Jasbir Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasbir Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurpreet Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Harmesh Singh Vs State of Punjab

Raj Singh Ahlawat Vs State of Haryana

Suraj Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Jagwinder Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Geeta Vs State of Haryana and Ors.