Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 36 (RAJ)

Dalveer Singh v. State

2019-01-03

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - The petitioner has preferred this petition claiming following reliefs:- "It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 5.11.2018 passed gby learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Jodhpur Metropolitan and criminal proceedings in Sessions Case No. 46/2018 may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set aside." 2. That on 27.3.2016 complainant respondent No. 2 submitted a written report before the SHO Police Station, Mahamandir lodging an FIR alleging therein that the accused petitioner harassed her and compelled her to make friendship and also tried to commit rape upon her while taking video photographs. The FIR was registered and after investigation the chargesheet was filed against the petitioner for offence under Section 450, 354-D, 384, 376 IPC and Section , 11/12 POCSO Act. The charges have been framed and the petitioner has been put to trial under Section 450, 384, 376 Section 3/ 4 and 11/12 of POCSO Act. The petitioner and the respondent No. 2 moved an application under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. submitting the details of marriage between both the parties and seeking closure of the trial in light of the judgment of Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr , (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narendra Singh and ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr , (2014) 6 SCC 466 . The counsel for the petitioner after submitting details from the record was requested by the Court to call the petitioner and respondent No. 2 in person. 3. Both the parties appeared in person yesterday and were heard at length in the chamber and they are present in the court today also. 4. The facts that have been pleaded and demonstrated by the parties in person is that they entered into a marriage on 19.11.2018 as per the customs. The marriage card and marriage photographs are also on record. The petitioner and the respondent No. 2 are living together as husband and wife since 19.11.2018 with the consent of their parents. The petitioner boy is 21 years of age and the girl is 19 years old on this date as accepted by the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner and the respondent No. 2 are living together as husband and wife since 19.11.2018 with the consent of their parents. The petitioner boy is 21 years of age and the girl is 19 years old on this date as accepted by the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 upon being asked by this court submitted that she had voluntarily entered into marriage with the petitioner and due to some differences and mis understanding an FIR was lodged. She clearly accepts that it was her voluntary relationship with the petitioner and today when she is major and married to same man she wants to live a happy married life with the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 also informed the court that her parents are happy and have accepted the marriage between her and the petitioner and therefore carrying on the case will have detrimental impact upon the institution of her marriage. Respondent No. 2 yesterday pleaded before this Court in the chamber that she is happy with the petitioner and living a peaceful married life with the consent of their parents and they have amicably settled as husband and wife, therefore, to avoid any harm to their married life FIR may be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments: - 1. Deepak Vs. State of Haryana and Anr in CRMl-M- 31825-2017 (Punjab and Haryana High Court) 2. Sajith S. Vs. State of Kwerala and ors. in Crime No. 834/2016 (Kerala High Court ) 3. Iqbal Ahmed Vs. Mumtaz and ors. in criminal petition No. 200938/2017 ( High Court of Karnataka Kalaburagi Bench) 4. Asha and another Vs. State of UP and Anr. (Allahabad High Court). 6. The application preferred by the parties before the learned court below has been rejected only on the ground that the offences are non compoundable. Being plea of the respondent No. 2 before this Court that pendency of these proceedings would hamper the institution of marriage of the respondent No. 2 and may affect the future of their matrimonial life. The petitioner also has submitted that they are married and are leading congenial matrimony life. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the offences for which the petitioner has been chargesheeted are of heinous nature and therefore invoking the jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr.P.C. was not warranted. 8. The petitioner also has submitted that they are married and are leading congenial matrimony life. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the offences for which the petitioner has been chargesheeted are of heinous nature and therefore invoking the jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr.P.C. was not warranted. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and hearing the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 at length this court finds that ordinarily it was not a matter where this Court should have interfered under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the alleged crime is non compoundable and is of serious nature. The very invocation of Sections 450, 354-D, 384, 376 IPC and Sections 3/ 4, 11/12 POCSO Act put the case in a very serious parameter of law reflecting the grievousness of offences which are considered as offences against the society and therefore the court below was right in refusing to interfere at that stages. 9. The relevant para of judgment passed in Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reads as under: "In a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another , (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the Hon'ble Apex Court 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. 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." 6. 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." 6. 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 quesiton 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 form a reading of the FIR and the other 3 of 5 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. 6. We need to emphasize that it is perha ps advisable that in dispute 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." 7. In the judgment rendered in Gian Singh Vs. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law." 7. In the judgment rendered in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr , (2012) 10 SCC 303 the basic principle of law as laid down is that where offences are purely private in nature and do not concern public policy, the power to quash proceedings involving non compoundable offences on the basis of compromise can be exercised. " 10. Looking to aforementioned precedent law and other precedent law cited, this court is of the view that once the respondent No. 2 has clearly put the compromise on record and has prayed before this Court also that she is willing and voluntary married with the petitioner on 19.11.2018 and both are residing as husband and wife happily it shall not be appropriate to not to exercise jurisdiction of section 482 Cr.P.C., therefore, while relying upon the aforesaid judgment and peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it to be a fit case for invoking its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. even when the offences alleged are as grave as Sections 450, 354-D, 384, 376 IPC and Sections 3/ 4, 11/12 POCSO Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again held that if the compromise is arrived between the parties in initial phase of the trial proceedings then the High Court should quash the proceedings. It is a peculiar case where the continuance of the proceedings of trial would hamper the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent No. 2. Consequently, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the and in view of the ratio of law laid down in aforesaid judgments all consequential proceedings are quashed and set aside.