Gurmeet Singh vs The State Of Punjab & Others on 24 August, 2009

 CRM No. M-22477 of 2009                                   1



    IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
              HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

                                 CRM No. M-22477 of 2009 (O&M)
                                 Date of decision: 24.8.2009

Gurmeet Singh                                        ...Petitioner

                             Versus

The State of Punjab & others                         ...Respondents


CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present:     Mr. JBS Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner.


Rajan Gupta, J.

This is a petition for quashing of the FIR bearing No.104

dated 12th October, 2008, registered against the petitioner under

Sections 363, 366 & 376 IPC at Police Station Dasuya, District

Hoshiarpur, on the basis of compromise.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

respondent No.3 had accompanied the petitioner of her own accord.

Thus, no offence under Sections 363, 366 & 376 IPC is made out. Even

otherwise, the compromise had been arrived at between the parties.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given

careful thought to the facts of the case.

The FIR in question was lodged by aunt (father’s sister) of

Jobanpreet Kaur- respondent No.3. She alleged that her niece

Jobanpreet Kaur was 13 years of age. Father of Jobanpreet Kaur was of

unsound mind and her mother had left the home. She was being looked
CRM No. M-22477 of 2009 2

after by the complainant. However, she was kidnapped by the

petitioner. A case was registered by the police against the petitioner

under Sections 363, 366 IPC, on complaint of aunt of Jobanpreet Kaur.

The offences alleged are under Sections 363, 366 and 376

IPC. The age of Jobanpreet Kaur is stated to be 13 years. Though,

learned counsel for the petitioner has disputed the age of respondent

No.3 Jobanpreet Kaur, yet even according to him, her age at the time of

her alleged occurrence was 14½ years. Learned counsel has submitted

that in view of definition of rape contained in Section 375 IPC, no

offence under the said Section is made out as she was married to the

petitioner. However, exception to Section 375 IPC reads thus:-

“Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife
not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape.”

It is, thus, clear that it cannot be said that offence under

Section 376 IPC is not made out. The alleged compromise and

statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also cannot help

the petitioner. In the judgment reported as Manoj Sharma vs. State &

Ors., 2008 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 827, rendered by the Apex Court, it

has been held that there are certain offences, which are serious in nature

and cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. The relevant para

of the said judgment reads thus:

“34. I am expressing this opinion because Shri B.B.
Singh, learned counsel for the respondent has rightly
CRM No. M-22477 of 2009 3

expressed his concern that the decision in B.S. Joshi’s
case (supra) should not be understood to have meant
that Judges can quash any kind of criminal case merely
because there has been a compromise between the
parties. After all, a crime is an offence against society,
and not merely against a private individual.”

It is not possible to come to a conclusion at this stage that

no offence, as alleged in the FIR, is made out. I do not find it a fit case

for quashing of the FIR in inherent jurisdiction of this court.

I, thus, find no merit in this petition. The same is hereby

dismissed.

(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
August 24, 2009
‘rajpal’