JASPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No. 99 dated 12.7.2002 under Sections 376/420/342/506/34 IPC, registered at Police Station City Faridkot, Annexure P-1 and the proceedings consequential thereto, on the basis of compromise, Annexure P-2.

(2.) IN the compromise-deed, Annexure P-2, it is stated that under some mental tension and because of some misunderstanding, the deponent had given an application against the accused person, namely, Jaspal Singh to some Senior Officers. Consequently, the aforesaid FIR was registered. Thereafter, the Panchayat members and other respectables have intervened. She is now living with the accused as his wife. She is also stated to be four months pregnant. Although very serious allegations have been made against the petitioner in the FIR, yet the respondent appeared before the Court on 21.8.2002 and stated that she is willing to marry the petitioner. It was also stated that she is pregnant from the loins of the petitioner. Mr. Duggal has submitted that in such circumstances, it is open to this Court to quash the FIR and the proceedings subsequent thereto, in the interest of justice. In support of this proposition, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Sanjiv Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and another, 1996(1) Sic 735. In that case, in similar circumstances, it has been observed that since the complainant is not likely to support the case of the prosecution, it would be in the interest of justice to put an end to the proceedings. In the present case, the complainant has already made an application to the District Magistrate for withdrawal of the prosecution. In the case of Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and anr. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors., 1988(1) Recent Criminal Reports 565 (SC), the Supreme Court has observed as follows :-

(3.) IN peculiar circumstances of this case, I am of the considered opinion that it would be futile exercise to permit the proceedings to continue. Powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are extraordinary in nature which are to be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It must, however, always be remembered that although the powers are extraordinary in nature, the same are to be used sparingly and with circumspection to secure the ends of justice. These powers must never be exercised to subvert the course of justice. Although axiomatic, but it must be reiterated that greater the power, greater the care and caution with which it ought to be exercised. The Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others, AIR 1997 SC 1489 held that "in the exercise of the wholesome power under Section 482 of the Code High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings are to be quashed." This view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., 2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 707 (SC). In the present case, I am satisfied that it would be in the interest of justice to put an end to the criminal proceedings. The offence under Section 376 IPC not being compoundable even with the permission of the Court, would not prevent the court from quashing the proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., if the ends of justice so require. I find support for this view of mine in an unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhai Rajinder Pal Singh v. Manveen Kaur in Special Leave Petition Appeal (Cri.) No. 4391/98 decided on 14.5.1999. While allowing the Special Leave Petition at the motion stage itself, the Supreme Court observed as follows :-