Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1267 (PNJ)

Harmeet Kaur v. State of Punjab

2012-09-21

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.: - An FIR No.199 dated 17.12.2008 was registered under Sections 376/420 IPC at Police Station, Sarabha Nagar District Ludhiana alleging that respondent No.2-accused Kashmir Singh had promised the petitioner to marry her and had requested her to live with him in the same house to which she agreed and thus, obtained her consent and committed sexual intercourse with her number of times. However, later on he refused to marry her and thus, committed sexual intercourse with her consent which was obtained by fraud. 2. With the intervention of the respectables, respondent-Kashmir Singh agreed to marry her and thus, the petitioner filed an affidavit in Crl.Misc.No.11896 of 2009 decided on 30.5.2009 before this Court and thereafter, this Court released the respondent-Kashmir Singh on bail. Keeping in view the fact that the dispute was settled between the parties and the respondent had promised to marry her, the petitioner filed Criminal Misc.No.M-16467 of 2009 seeking indulgence of this court to quash the proceedings in FIR No.199 dated 17.12.2008 against respondent-Kashmir Singh to enable her to start a fresh life with him. 3. Keeping in view the submissions made, this Court allowed the said petition vide order dated 10.7.2009 by passing the following order: “This petition has been moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No.199 dated 17.12.2008 (Annexure P-1), registered under Sections 376, 420 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, District Ludhiana and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the ground of compromise (Annexure P- 3). Learned counsel for the petitioner maintained with great eloquence that respondent No.2 Kashmir Singh had promised to marry the petitioner and on the pretext to marry, he obtained her consent and committed sexual intercourse. When respondent No.2 refused to marry the petitioner, the latter was constrained to lodge the present FIR against respondent No.2. He further submits that with the intervention of the respectables, both the parties have settled their dispute and respondent No.2 has agreed to marry the petitioner. These facts have been gracefully conceded by the learned counsel for respondent No.2. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served if the proceedings are allowed to continue. He further submits that with the intervention of the respectables, both the parties have settled their dispute and respondent No.2 has agreed to marry the petitioner. These facts have been gracefully conceded by the learned counsel for respondent No.2. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served if the proceedings are allowed to continue. Petitioner Harmeet Kaur, who is the author of the alleged FIR, has sworn an affidavit dated 2.6.2009 (Annexure P-3) in the form of compromise, wherein she has stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed, as the matter has been compromised. In view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in re: Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another, [2007(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2365 (SC)] : 2007(3) Recent Criminal Reports (Crl.) 1052, the Court is competent to quash the proceedings on the basis of compromise. Sequelly, this petition is accepted and FIR No.199 dated 17.12.2008 (Annexure P-1), registered under Sections 376, 420 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, District Ludhiana and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.” 4. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondent for fixing the date of marriage but he kept on delaying the matter on one pretext or the other and even made the petitioner to sign few affidavits stating that they were required for matrimonial purposes. The petitioner later on also came to know that respondent-Kashmir Singh was contracting second marriage with some other lady and was trying to cheat her. Thus, the petitioner fell in prey to the false promises made to her by the respondent and thus, her consent for quashing the FIR was obtained by the respondent by way of fraud and in these circumstances, the petitioner has filed Criminal Misc.No.5447 of 2011 to recall the order dated 10.7.2009 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc.No.M-16467 of 2009. 5. The respondent has filed reply to the aforesaid application denying the allegations and further stating that in fact the petitioner has developed relationship with another person and was not interested in marrying him. The respondent further levelled allegations against the petitioner that she was in relationship with some other person and thus, the present application for recalling the order dated 10.7.2009 being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 6. The respondent further levelled allegations against the petitioner that she was in relationship with some other person and thus, the present application for recalling the order dated 10.7.2009 being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 6. It may be noticed at this stage that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken a consistent view that an FIR under Section 376 IPC cannot be quashed being non-compoundable, however, the order dated 10.7.2009 had been passed by this Court keeping in view the fact that the petitioner with whom sexual intercourse has been committed by the respondent under the false promise of marriage, was going to start her life afresh and the compromise was for her benefit and to save her from further humiliation in the society as the respondent had agreed to marry her. Except the aforesaid fact of saving the honour of the petitioner, there was no other ground to allow quashing of FIR registered under Section 376 IPC against the respondent. 7. Respondent No.2 has placed on record his reply by filing Crl.Misc.Nos.55887-88 of 2012 which are allowed to be taken on record. 8. In the written statement, respondent-Kashmir Singh has not come out with a categoric stand that he was ready to marry the petitioner but has taken a different stand alleging that the petitioner was in some relationship with another person. 9. Thus, prima facie this Court is of the view that the respondent had taken advantage of the weak position of the petitioner and had made her to file this petition to quash the proceedings in FIR No.199 dated 17.12.2008 against him under the false promise of marrying her. It is well settled that any order of the Court which has been obtained by fraud cannot be sustained. 10. In this view of the matter, Crl.Misc.Nos.5447-48 of 2011 are allowed and the order dated 10.7.2009 is recalled. 11. At this stage, it may further be noticed that counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that the quashing of the FIR in question was sought only on the ground of compromise and there exists no other ground on the basis of which FIR registered levelling allegations against respondent No.2 could be quashed. 12. Thus, the petition for quashing of FIR i.e. Criminal Misc.No.M- 16467 of 2009 is ordered to be dismissed. 13. The respondent-Authority is directed to proceed in the FIR in accordance with law. 14. 12. Thus, the petition for quashing of FIR i.e. Criminal Misc.No.M- 16467 of 2009 is ordered to be dismissed. 13. The respondent-Authority is directed to proceed in the FIR in accordance with law. 14. A compliance report be filed on behalf of respondent No.1 within one month. ---------0.B.S.0------------