High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/10703/2020allowed

Badal Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others

2022-09-30Mr. Justice Vivek Puri8 pages

CRM-M-10703-2020 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and In the High Court for the States of Punjab and In the High Court for the States of Punjab and In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Haryana at Chandigarh Haryana at Chandigarh Haryana at Chandigarh CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-10703 10703 10703 10703-20 2020 (O&M) 20 (O&M) 20 (O&M) 20 (O&M) Date of Decision:

Date of Decision:

Date of Decision: September 30 September 30 September 30 September 30, 2022 , 2022 , 2022 , 2022 Badal Singh ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK PURI JUSTICE VIVEK PURI JUSTICE VIVEK PURI JUSTICE VIVEK PURI Present: Mr. Suvir Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, DAG, Punjab, for respondents no.1 and 2.

Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate and Mr. S.S. Sodhi, Advocate, for respondent No. 3.

Vivek Puri, J.

The petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure invoking its inherent jurisdiction for quashing of FIR No. 53, dated 21.03.2018, under Sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC'), registered at Police Station Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda and all the consequential proceedings

CRM-M-10703-2020 (O&M) 2 arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 21.04.2018 (Annexure P-5).

Briefly, the FIR has been registered on the basis of the statement of the respondent no.3 alleging that she is aged about 23 years and the petitioner along with respondent no.3 were studying together in the college. The respondent no.3 came in contact with the petitioner. On 11.01.2016, the respondent no.3 was taken by the petitioner to an unknown house at Talwandi Sabo where rape was committed without her consent. The petitioner also took her pictures and had been blackmailing on that score by threatening to put the same on social media.

It has been contended by the learned counsel for petitioner, as well as, respondent no. 3 that both the parties were in relationship. The respondent no.3 is aged more than 23 years. They have solemnized marriage on 13.04.2018 and Annexure P-2 is the certificate of marriage. The date of birth of the respondent no.3 has been reflected as 05.05.1995 in the certificate and even in the FIR, her age has been depicted to be 23 years. Even at the earlier instance, the petitioner and respondent no.3 had

CRM-M-10703-2020 (O&M) 3 instituted a petition for protection to their life and liberty before the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda. The couple is stated to be happily residing together.

In terms of order dated 16.03.2020, the parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements and the concerned Court was directed to send the report with regard to genuineness of compromise and also to intimate whether any of the accused has been declared proclaimed offender in the case.

In compliance of order dated 16.03.2020, both the parties have appeared before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Talwandi Sabo and got their statements recorded. It may be mentioned here that in the report the name of the complainant has been mentioned, but the same is not being reproduced in the judgment and is being referred to as `respondent no.3'. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class after recording the statements of the parties, has sent the report dated 09.04.2021, the relevant portion whereof reads as under:-

CRM-M-10703-2020 (O&M) 4

$ % &

(

) $

) &

* % $

+, -

* / & *

# 1$ %

) $ %

* /

+,%

* *

+, 2 *

#' *

)

* % 4

CRM-M-10703-2020 (O&M) 5 Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that as an amicable settlement has been effected between the private parties and have solemnized marriage, it shall be appropriate to meet the ends of justice, if the FIR and subsequent proceedings are quashed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also sought to place reliance upon Criminal Criminal Criminal Criminal Appeal Nos. 394 Appeal Nos. 394 Appeal Nos. 394 Appeal Nos. 394-395 of 2021 395 of 2021 titled 'Anand D.V 'Anand D.V 'Anand D.V 'Anand D.V Versus State and another'

Versus State and another'

Versus State and another' wherein the proceedings were quashed after the parties eventually got married subsequent to the registration of the FIR. Reliance has also been placed upon 2018(2) 2018(2) 2018(2) 2018(2) Crimes 438 Crimes 438 Crimes 438 Crimes 438 titled 'Lovely Versus State of Punjab' 'Lovely Versus State of Punjab'

'Lovely Versus State of Punjab'

wherein the proceedings were quashed after the parties had solemnized marriage and were happily residing as husband and wife.

The inherent power vested in this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not to be invoked as a matter of routine but to prevent the abuse of power of Court and to secure ends of justice. This section gives the power to this Court to entertain applications which are not contemplated in the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the event, it is

CRM-M-10703-2020 (O&M) 6 felt that the ends of justice will require that the Court can invoke the extraordinary powers which are to be exercised with restraint and not lightly. In the event, the Court is satisfied that in order to secure the ends of justice, it should interfere under its inherent powers, it ought to do so.

It shall not be out of place to mention here that though the allegations leveled in the FIR are with regard to the commission of a serious offence, which is non-compoundable, but in the case in hand, the respondent no.3 having attained the age of majority has voluntarily solemnized marriage with the petitioner and are stated to be residing happily.

In such circumstances, the possibility of conviction also become remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case will cause injustice not only to the petitioner but also to respondent No.3, who is now legally wedded wife of the petitioner.

As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., so as to secure the ends of justice

CRM-M-10703-2020 (O&M) 7 in the light of amicable settlement having been effected between the parties. Although the FIR was registered at the first instance but it has materialized into marriage. The respondent No.3 has attained requisite age for valid marriage. In such a situation, continuation of the prosecution would result in sheer abuse of process of law. In the event, the FIR is quashed, it will be for the welfare of the parties and would also tend to strengthen healthy matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.3 as husband and wife.

For the aforesaid view, this Court finds support from Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Gian Singh Gian Singh Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303 Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303 Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303 Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another 2014(6)SCC 466.

and another 2014(6)SCC 466.

Considering peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned and to secure the ends of justice, FIR No. 53, dated 21.03.2018, under Sections 376/506 IPC, registered at Police Station Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda and all

CRM-M-10703-2020 (O&M) 8 the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed, however, qua the petitioner only.

Resultantly, with above-said observations made, the instant petition stands allowed.

September September September September 30 30, 2022 , 2022 , 2022 , 2022 [Vivek Puri] [Vivek Puri] [Vivek Puri] [Vivek Puri] vkd Judge Judge Judge Judge Whether reasonable / speaking :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No