The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quahsed FIR lodged against husband under Sections 498A, 354 IPC on the ground of 'settlement' between the parties while terming them as 'petty crimes with no moral turpitude'
The single-judge bench of Justice Sandeep Sharma observed that the offences concerned around demanding dowry and outraging modesty aren't 'grave/heinous crime.'
Brief Facts of the Case
The marriage took place as per Hindu Customs and Rites and out of their wedlock, no child was born. Since on account of certain differences, parties were unable to live together and therefore the wife started living separately with her parents. In the FIR, she alleged that she was constantly harassed and tortured by her husband and other family members on account of bringing less dowry. After completion of the investigation, Police presented challan in the competent court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties to the lis have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them by way of compromise placed on record.
Thereafter, they obtained divorce with mutual consent.
In the Court, under oath she admitted having taken the Divorce with free consent and denied presence of any external pressure. She entered the compromise with the petitioners-accused with her own will, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them. She stated that since after lodging of FIR sought to be quashed, she has taken the divorce by way of mutual consent, she does not wish to prosecute the case further and as such, shall have no objection in case FIR as well consequent proceedings, are quashed and set-aside and accused are acquitted.
High Court Observation
Learned AG suggested that no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR sought to be quashed as well as consequent proceedings pending before the court below are allowed to sustain. He further stated that otherwise also, chances of conviction of the accused in view of the aforesaid statements made on oath, are very remote and bleak and as such, prayer made in the instant petition may be accepted.
The Court taking cue from legal precedents in following and deemed it appropriate to the quash the FIR:
-Narinder Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2014 Latest Caselaw 467 SC,
-Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another, 2012 Latest Caselaw 527 SC,
-Dimpey Gujral W/O. Vivek Gujral & Ors. Vs. Union Territory through Administratator, U.T. Chandigarh & Ors., 2012 Latest Caselaw 701 SC,
- Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors Vs. State of Gujarat and ANR., 2017 Latest Caselaw 714 SC
Due regard to the nature and gravity of offence
"It is quite apparent from the aforesaid exposition of law that High Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, but such power is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. In the judgments, referred hereinabove, Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that Court while exercising inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., must have due regard to the nature and gravity of offence sought to be compounded. Hon’ble Apex Court has though held that heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc. cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute, but it has also observed that while exercising its powers, 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 cases."
Settlement between the parties as a factor
"Hon’ble Apex Court has further held that Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C can also be swayed by the fact that settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment rendered in State of Tamil Nadu supra, has reiterated that Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice and has held that the power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. In the aforesaid judgment Hon’ble Apex Court has held that while forming an opinion whether a criminal proceedings or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power."
In view of the above, the Court went on to note:
"In the present matter, offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners do not involve offences of moral turpitude or any grave/heinous crime, rather same are petty offences and thus are liable to be quashed. The consequential proceedings thereto, especially keeping in view the fact that the petitioners and the complainant have compromised the matter inter-se them, in which case, possibility of conviction is remote/bleak and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings."
Read Judgement Here:
