Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4072 (HP)

Surinder Singh v. State of H. P.

2025-12-09

Virender Singh

body2025
JUDGMENT : VIRENDER SINGH, J. 1. Petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No.73 of 2023, dated 24.07.2023, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered with Police Station, Shahpur, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 376, 377, 354-C, 506 of Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and Sections 67, 67-A of Information Technology Act (hereinafter referred to as the IT Act), and Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the SC&ST Act), as well as, proceedings, resultant thereto, which are pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court). 2. According to the petitioner, on the complaint of respondent No.2, the police registered the FIR, in question, and the criminal machinery swung into motion and thereafter, charge sheet has been filed, before the learned trial Court. 3. It is the further case of the applicant, that now, complainant (respondent No.2) has settled the dispute, with the petitioner and does not intend to prosecute the accused (petitioner), as, they are residing in the same vicinity and in order to maintain their cordial relations, they have settled the matter with each other. Both of them have also entered into compromise, settling all the differences/misunderstandings between them and to live peacefully. The petitioner, in this regard, has relied upon the compromise, as Annexure P-3. 4. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the petition. 5. When put to notice, the State has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 24.07.2023, complaint-respondent No.2 moved a complaint, disclosing therein, that she is the resident of the address, as mentioned, in the complaint and according to her, the petitioner for the last two years, made her to understand that he is in love with her and he will solemnize marriage with her and on that pretext, she has been exploited sexually. Not only this, according to respondent No.2, petitioner had disclosed his wrong name and address to her and pretended to be unmarried and working in Army. 5.1. On the basis of the above facts, petitioner allegedly expressed his desire of love, as well as, to solemnize marriage with respondent No.2. Not only this, according to respondent No.2, petitioner had disclosed his wrong name and address to her and pretended to be unmarried and working in Army. 5.1. On the basis of the above facts, petitioner allegedly expressed his desire of love, as well as, to solemnize marriage with respondent No.2. He has allegedly forced her to meet by sending the messages, as well as, by making the phone calls. Consequently, respondent No.2 met her at place known, as 32 Miles, from where, he took her to unknown place in his car. Despite her resistance, he took her to Jyoti Restaurant Kandwal, a pre-fixed place and sexually harassed her. 5.2. Not only this, according to the complainant, he has also clicked her photographs and made video, despite her resistance by showing those photographs and videos, he has started blackmailing her and sexually exploiting her for the last two years. When, respondent No.2 discussed this matter with her maternal Aunt, she has given her courage to fight against the atrocity, as such, she has prayed that action be taken against him. 5.3. She has further got recorded that accused (petitioner) tried to contact her, by calling from various mobile numbers, but, respondent No.2 had not attended those calls, nor, responded to the messages. Two days prior, making of the complaint, according to her, when, petitioner came on leave, he had created a scene, under the influence of liquor, in her house. Not only this, he has also threatened her that he is in Army and no one can harm him. 5.4. On the basis of the above facts, she has also got recorded that the petitioner had threatened her parents to make his photos and video viral. As such, she has prayed that action be taken against him. 5.5. On the basis of the above facts, criminal machinery swung into motion and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the applicant, which is pending before the learned trial Court. 5.6. As per the supplementary status report, filed on 02.09.2025, case is now listed for PWs. 5.7. Now, the petitioner is before this Court, on the basis of the compromise allegedly taken place between the petitioner and respondent No.2. 5.6. As per the supplementary status report, filed on 02.09.2025, case is now listed for PWs. 5.7. Now, the petitioner is before this Court, on the basis of the compromise allegedly taken place between the petitioner and respondent No.2. The same is on the file and perusal of the same shows that the reason for settlement/compromise as mentioned, in this document is the advice of the elders and close relatives, which leads to amicable settlement between the parties. 5.8 On the basis of the above facts, Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, assisted by Karanveer Singh, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner has prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed, by quashing the FIR, in question, as well as, proceedings, resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court. 5.9. Per Contra, Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondent No.1, has opposed the prayer that the alleged settlement/compromise between the parties is nothing, but, to scuttle the proceedings, with ulterior motive. It has also been argued that the crime alleged, in the present case, is not against the individual, but, the same is against the State and falls within the definition of henious offence. 6. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the petition. 7. The petitioner is before this Court, by way of present petition, Under Section 528 of BNSS. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another , (2014) 6 SCC 466 , has elaborately discussed the powers of this Court, under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 of the BNSS) and formulated the guidelines for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings, while holding that the timing of the settlement is a crucial factor, for exercising the power, under Section 482 Cr.PC. Relevant para 29.3, of the judgment, is reproduced, as under: “29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Relevant para 29.3, of the judgment, is reproduced, as under: “29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.” (self emphasis supplied) 9. The judgment in Narinder Singh’s case (supra) has been affirmed by a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others , (2019) 5 SCC 688 . 10. Admittedly, the case has been registered against the petitioner-accused, under the serious provisions of the law, i.e. Section 64 of the BNS (Section 376 IPC). Now, the next question, which arises for determination, before this Court, is as to whether there is clear cut prohibition in quashing the proceedings under Section 64 of the BNS. The answer is in negative, as, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent decision, in Madhukar & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2025 INSC 819 , has although provided a window to this Court, while exercising the power, under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 of the BNS), as per the facts and circumstances of each case. Relevant para 6, of the judgment, is reproduced, as under: “6. At the outset, we recognise that the offence under Section 376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and heinous nature. Ordinarily, quasing of proceedings involving such offences on the ground of settlement between the parties is discouraged and should not be permitted lightly. However, the power of the court under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case.” 11. Ordinarily, quasing of proceedings involving such offences on the ground of settlement between the parties is discouraged and should not be permitted lightly. However, the power of the court under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case.” 11. In Haji Iqbal alias Bala through S.P.O.A. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others , (2023) 20 SCC 209 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while re-iterating the powers of this Court, under Section 482 CrPC, has cast a duty upon this Court, to look into the FIR, with care and more closely and held that this Court is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case, as well as, the material collected in the course of investigation. Relevant paras 14 to 17, of the judgment, are reproduced, as under: “14. It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication, particularly where a large number of accused are involved. It must, further, be borne in mind that the broad principle is that an injured witness was present at the time when the incident happened and that ordinarily such a witness would not tell a lie as to the actual assailants, but there is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of such a witness is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration. [See : Raju & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 15 SCC 133 ] 15. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. 16. 16. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. 17. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged.” (self emphasis supplied) 12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in the present case has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court, in Criminal Appeal No.............of 2025 in SLP (CRL.) No. 3287 of 2025, titled as Seeman vs. State Rep. by its Inspector of Police & Anr. and decision of this Court in case titled as Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another , Cr. MMO No. 662 of 2025, which was decided on 29.07.2025. 13. by its Inspector of Police & Anr. and decision of this Court in case titled as Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another , Cr. MMO No. 662 of 2025, which was decided on 29.07.2025. 13. With due respect to the law laid down in the above cases, the same is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as respondent No.3, at one point of time, levelled serious allegations, against the petitioner, as to how, accused (petitioner) had allegedly ravished her and clicked her photographs and recorded her videos, thereafter, on the basis of alleged photographs and videos, he had also started blackmailing her, on various occasions. The compromise, which has allegedly been taken place between the parties is also silent about the terms and conditions of the “amicable settlement”. The terms and conditions of the compromise are consisting of only five clauses. Nothing has been mentioned, in the compromise, as to what were the terms and conditions, upon which, the “amicable settlement has taken place between the parties”. 14. As stated above, the offence of rape falls within the definition of henious offence and as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh’s case (supra), power under Section 482 of BNSS, in such type of cases should not be exercised lightly. 15. Although, in Madhukar’s case (supra), some relaxation has been given to this Court to exercise the power under Section 528 of BNSS, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case and considering the allegations, if, the prayer to quash the FIR, on the basis of ‘amicable settlement’ is accepted, then, the same would amount to give premium to the accused for his alleged violation of law. 16. Moreover, accepting such type of compromise, which are not clear about the terms and conditions, it would encourage the litigants to get the FIR, quashed on the basis of the compromise with oblique motive, which is antithesis to the rule of law. 17. At the sake of repetition, this Court is also not satisfied with regard to the genuineness of the compromise, as respondent No.2 at one point of time levelled serious allegations and now, entered upon in the compromise simply stating that she does not want to pursue the matter, as the same has allegedly been settled amicably. 18. 17. At the sake of repetition, this Court is also not satisfied with regard to the genuineness of the compromise, as respondent No.2 at one point of time levelled serious allegations and now, entered upon in the compromise simply stating that she does not want to pursue the matter, as the same has allegedly been settled amicably. 18. Considering all these facts, there is no occasion for this Court to accept the present petition. Consequently, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.