Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 237 (PNJ)

Manjinder Singh v. State of Punjab

2024-01-24

MANISHA BATRA

body2024
JUDGMENT Mrs. Manisha Batra, J. (Oral) The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No. 88 dated 15.10.2023, registered under Sections 452, 354, 354A, 354A, 376, 511 and 423 of the IPC at Police Station Qila Lal Singh, District Batala along with the all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the statement recorded on 15.10.2023 by complainant 'P' (name withheld), aged about 25 years, alleging therein that on she was two month pregnant. At 06:00 PM, when she was doing the household work, her neighbour Manjinder Singh (petitioner herein) entered into her house through stairs and choked her mouth and twisted her hands. He dragged her to the bathroom and tried to commit rape upon her but at the same time, her husband knocked at the door and the petitioner by kicking in her stomach and hitting her with a bathroom faucet, ran away towards his house through the stairs. She prayed for taking action against the culprit. During investigation, the petitioner was arrested and subsequently, he was released on bail. The trial is going on. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the parties are major. They have settled their dispute amicably with the intervention of the respectables of the society. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner as chances of his conviction are remote and bleak as the complainant herself has turned hostile during trial. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2/complainant has admitted to the factum of compromise entered into between the parties and has submitted that respondent No.2/complainant has no objection if the FIR is quashed. 5. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer of the petitioner by arguing that the petitioner is accused of committing offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section511 of the IPC, which is quite serious in nature and falls within the category of heinous crime. The compromise between the parties is not permissible in law. 5. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer of the petitioner by arguing that the petitioner is accused of committing offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section511 of the IPC, which is quite serious in nature and falls within the category of heinous crime. The compromise between the parties is not permissible in law. While stressing that the petition is misconceived, he has urged that the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the material placed on record. 7. It will be relevant to mention here that vide order dated 20.11.2023 passed by this Court, the parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 20.12.2023 for recording their statements with regard to the compromise/settlement. The trial Court was directed to submit its report. A report has been submitted by the trial Court as per which the statements of the respondent No.2/complainant, the present petitioner and the Investigating Officer had been recorded on 20.12.2023. It is also reported that the trial Court was satisfied that the compromise between the parties was genuine and without any undue influence. 8. There are catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court whereby, parameters governing the exercise of jurisdiction of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are well settled. In a celebrated judgment cited as State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SUPP (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed different categories of cases wherein, the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised either to prevent abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, while observing that it might not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined, sufficiently channelized, inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list or myriad kind of cases where such powers should be exercised. The following principles have been culled out:- "102 (1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (3) Where the un-controverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code; (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 9. Reference can also be made to Narinder Singh and Ors. Reference can also be made to Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court has to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction of accused is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put him into great oppression and prejudice and injustice would be caused to him by not quashing criminal case. 10. It is also considered to be important to mention here that the inherent power given to High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. The touchstone for exercising that power would be to secure the ends of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered in accordance with the law enacted by the Legislature. The concept of justice is elastic and imprescriptible. There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. The restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may instead lead to grave injustice. Nonetheless such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing proceedings, bearing in mind, the nature and effect of the offence on the consciousness of the society; the seriousness of the injury, if any; voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; and conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence or other relevant considerations. Reference in this regard can be made to a recent judgment of High Court of Kerala pronounced on 16.11.2023 in Crl. MC No.7497 of 2023, Kahar and others v. State of Kerala and others, wherein it was observed that the viability of quashing a criminal proceeding on the ground that the accused and victim of sexual assault settles the dispute, resolves ultimately around the facts and circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be formulated. MC No.7497 of 2023, Kahar and others v. State of Kerala and others, wherein it was observed that the viability of quashing a criminal proceeding on the ground that the accused and victim of sexual assault settles the dispute, resolves ultimately around the facts and circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be formulated. It was further observed that where the High Court has such facts on record which clearly exhibit that the criminal prosecution involving non-compoundable sexual offences against women and children will result in greater injustice to the victim, its closure would only promote her well being, and the possibility of a conviction is remote, it can indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond the body of an individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach and very well decide to quash such proceeding upon a compromise between the accused and the victim after taking into account all relevant facts. 11. It is well settled that the High Court has power to allow compounding of a non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. where it feels that the same is required to prevent the abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Such power is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone. In this regard, reference can be made to a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052. It is equally settled position of law that the power of High Court in quashing criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation. Such power can certainly be exercised in cases relating to 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. Such power can certainly be exercised in cases relating to 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. The High Court is required to consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate to put an end to the criminal case and if the answer to such question is in affirmative, then the High Court is well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings. Reference in this context can be made to Hon'ble Apex Court judgments cited as Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543 and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466 . 12. In view of the proposition as settled in the aforementioned cases, this Court finds that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse process of the Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case which squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and that allowing and accepting the prayer of the petitioner by quashing of the FIR would be securing the ends of justice, which is primarily the object of legislature enacted under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. This Court is also of the opinion that quashing of the impugned FIR would be for the welfare of the parties and the ends of justice would be met in putting to rest the ongoing legal battle between the parties in pursuance of the compromise entered into between them. 13. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 88 dated 15.10.2023, registered under Sections 452, 354, 354A, 354A, 376, 511 and 423 of the IPC at Police Station Qila Lal Singh, District Batala along with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom is ordered to be quashed qua the petitioner herein. 14. Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise and statements as recorded before learned Judicial Magistrate.