The court emphasized the importance of examining the possibility of conviction, the personal nature of disputes in criminal proceedings, and the principles for quashing FIRs pertaining to non-compoundable offences.

JUDGMENT

Jaishree Thakur, J —This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 4 dated 04.01.2018, registered under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Jodhewal, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise/affidavit dated 19.01.2018 (Annexure P-2) entered into between the parties.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the aforesaid FIR came to be registered at the behest of the complainant/respondent No. 2 in which it was stated that she she was aged about 23 years and educated upto 12th Class. She alleged that about two years back, she had gone to her cousin sister's marriage at Dharamshala, Kali Sadak, Ludhiana along with her family where petitioner-Lovely was also present. She fell in love with him and they promised to marry each other. Parents of both the parties were also aware of this relationship. After 4-5 months, the petitioner called her at his home where he was alone and forcibly made physical relations with her. Prior to this incident, the petitioner had taken the complainant to Vaishno Devi Temple where he made her obscene movie and threatened her to upload on the internet. It was on this background that the instant FIR was got registered. However, now with the intervention of respectable persons, the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and they have entered into a compromise. As per the terms of the marriage, the petitioner has now performed marriage with the complainant and they are residing together as husband and wife happily.

3. By an order dated 30.01.2018, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court so that their statement could be recorded regarding the genuineness of the compromise. The parties appeared before the CJM at Ludhiana. In pursuance of the direction, a report has been received from CJM at Ludhiana, stating that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same appears to be genuine one. It is also reported that no PO proceeding is pending against either of the parties.

4. In normal circumstances, this Court would not entertain a matter when the non compoundable offences are heinous and serious in nature. In the instant case, the offence complained of includes an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC which is an offence of grave nature. This Court is aware of the fact that time and again it has been held that an offence under Section 376 IPC is a grievous offence and considered as an offence against the society at large and thus, such matters should not be compromised. In the eyes of law, the offence of rape is serious and non-compoundable and the Courts should not in ordinary circumstances interfere and quash the FIR that has been registered.

5. In a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another , (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down certain principles and guidelines which should be kept in mind while quashing of FIRs pertaining to noncompoundable offence. For ready reference paragraphs No. 29.2 and 29.5 are reproduced as under :-

"29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure :

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case."

6. Even in a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot vs State Of Pu