Justice Amarjot Bhatti while quashing the FIR registered under Section 376(2)(n) and 506 of IPC, noted that since the petitioner and the respondent are major and have gotten married, therefore to secure the ends of justice their married life should not be disturbed with for the sake of the trial.
Brief Facts:
The current petition has been filed under Section 483 of CrPC for quashing the FIR registered under Sections 376(2)(n), 506 of IPC, and all subsequent proceedings on the basis of compromise between the parties.
Respondent no. 2 had lodged the FIR alleging that she is about 20 years old, and was married to Ranjit Chaudhary, she lived with him only for three days and then took a divorce because he used to beat her after consuming alcohol. She then started living with her parents, during this period she came in contact with the petitioner that is Chandan Paswan, who resided in the same mohalla. They were in a relationship with each other and their marriage was fixed for 27.02.2020. He used to visit her whenever she used to be alone at home and he had forced her and committed rape several times. On one occasion the matter was compromised and their marriage was to be solemnized on 27.02.2020. Thereafter, Chandan Paswan ran away from his house with his family to avoid marriage. She then lodged an FIR. Now the petitioner has filed the current case to quash the FIR on the grounds of compromise.
The statements of the petitioner and respondent no. 2 were recorded and respondent no. 2 confirmed that the compromise has been effected without any pressure or coercion from any side and that she had no objection regarding quashing of FIR.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court noted the facts and it was noted that the matter was reconciled and the petitioner and respondent no. 2 performed married on 28.02.2020 and were a happy married couple now. Then it was noted that although the offense under Section 376(2)(n), 506 of IPC is a serious offense and is non-compoundable under Section 320 of CrPC, the fact that the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 have compromised cannot be ignored. The case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. Vs. The state of Punjab and Anr was cited as an authority, in this case, it was explained that there cannot be any rule to enable the court to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC, the only principle is in the section itself that is to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. For the current facts, the court noted that the concerned people are major and they have performed the marriage. Their married life cannot be disturbed for the sake of the trial. Then the case of Jatin Aggarwal Vs. State of Telangana & Anr was also cited as an authority where the supreme court had exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to quash the FIR, where the accused had maintained physical relations with the complainant on a promise to marry and then they got married later. Accordingly, the ratio of the referred judgments was applied to the given facts.
The Decision of the Court:
Since the disputes of the couple were settled and they were living happily, the petition filed by the petitioner was accepted and the FIR under Sections 376(2)(n), 506 of IPC was quashed.
Case Title: Chandan Paswan v. State of Punjab and Another
Coram: Justice Amarjot Bhatti
Case No.: CRM-M-12854-2021
Advocates for the Petitioners: Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Mohinder Singh Joshi, Additional A.G. Punjab. Mr. Abdul Aziz, Advocate for respondent No.2
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
