***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) –

1. The petitioners through instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., on the basis of compromise, are seeking quashing of FIR No.171 dated 13.08.2020 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 376D and 506 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 registered at Police Station Nakodar Sadar, District Jalandhar (Rural) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. In terms of order dated 21.09.2021 of this Court, learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Jalandhar has submitted his report dated 10.11.2021. The relevant extracts of the report are as below :-

“From the statements of the parties i.e. prosecutrix as well as accused and affidavits Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 of prosecutrix placed on record, this Court is of the view that the matter has been compromised between the parties as prosecutrix has solemnized the marriage with accused-Rajveer Singh with her own free will on 04.09.2021 and the compromise effected between the parties seems to be genuine. In this case, accused-Rajveer Singh and Gursewak Singh were declared proclaimed offenders by the Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate vide order dated 24.12.2020. Said order has been stayed by Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 11.10.2021 passed in CRM-M-42796 of 2021. As per the status report received from concerned Police Station, accused-Rajveer Singh, Gursewak Singh or complainant have not been declared proclaimed offenders in any other case. Copies of statements of prosecutrix, both the accused and status report received from concerned Police Station are enclosed herewith.”

3. Learned State counsel on instruction from Investigating Officer and learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that they have no objection if FIR and consequent proceedings in view of compromise are quashed.

4. Relying upon its earlier judgments in 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2012) 10 SCC 303' = (2012) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 12249 and 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (2019) 5 SCC 688', a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Ramgopal and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2021 SCC online SC 834' while dealing with power of High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash non-compoundable offences on the basis of compromise between the disputing parties has held:

“11. True it is that offences which are ‘non-compoundable’ cannot be compounded by a criminal court in purported exercise of its powers under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Any such attempt by the court would amount to alteration, addition and modification of Section 320 Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain of Legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Section 320 Cr.P.C., which may justify its wider interpretation and include such offences in the docket of ‘compoundable’ offences which have been consciously kept out as non-compoundable. Nevertheless, the limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482 Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to secure the ends of justice.

12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non- compoundable. The High Court can indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond the body of an individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze the very object of the administration of criminal justice system.

13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are pre-dominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without saying, that the cases where compromise is struck post-conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extra-ordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by this Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. and Laxmi Narayan (Supra).

14. In other words, grave or serious offences or offences which involve moral turpitude or have a harmful effect on the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy, cannot be construed between two individuals or groups only, for such offences have the potential to impact the society at large. Effacing abominable offences through quashing process would not only send a wrong signal to the community but may also accord an undue benefit to unscrupulous habitual or professional offenders, who can secure a ‘settlement’ through duress, threats, social boycotts, bribes or other dubious means. It is well said that “let no guilty man escape, if it can be avoided.”

5. From the perusal of the enclosed FIR, report of the Trial Court and compromise arrived between the parties, it transpires that contesting parties have amicably resolved their issue, thus, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings. The offence of rape is not simple brutality or cruelty upon person of a female whereas it amounts to quelling sole, heart and mind of a victim as well her entire family members which in Indian context drastically affects their social, moral and matrimonial life. The possibilities of getting suitable matrimonial match abysmally reduce. In the present case, the petitioner has not simply made an offer of marriage whereas he has already solemnized marriage with the victim and she is happily cohabiting with the petitioner, thus, denial of prayer of the petitioner not only would be against the interest of petitioner but also victim and her family members. Further, there appears to be no chance of conviction, thus, the continuance of the proceedings would just waste valuable judicial time and it is well-known fact that courts are already overburdened.

6. In view of above facts and circumstances, the present petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly allowed.

7. FIR No.171 dated 13.08.2020 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 376D and 506 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 registered at Police Station Nakodar Sadar, District Jalandhar (Rural) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner(s).

Petition allowed.

********