Shri Inam vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4046 HP

                             1




    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
                AT SHIMLA




                                                   .
              ON THE 23rd DAY OF AUGUST, 2021





                      BEFORE





          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

          CRIMINAL MISC. PETITON (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC
          No.387 OF 2021


    BETWEEN:-

    AHSAN, SON OF
                 r       to

    SHRI INAM, HOUSE NO.116,
    AMBEHTA RINDAN, AMBEHTA,
    DISTRICT SHAMLI, U.P.,


    PRESENTLY R/O PAMPOSH
    COLONY, SECTOR-II,
    JANIPUR, JAMMU.




                                   .... PETITIONER





    (BY SHRI INDERJEET SINGH NARWAL, ADVOCATE)





    AND


    1.    STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
    2.    NAJMA KHATUN, WIFE OF
          SHRI AHSAN, R/O HOUSE NO.116,
          VILLAGE RINDAN AMBEHTA,




                                  ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:55:47 :::CIS
                                         2




           P.O. GARHI PUKHTA, TEHSIL
           UNH DISTRICT SHAMLI,
           U.P. PRESENTLY R/O PAMPOSH
           COLONY, SECTOR-II,




                                                                 .

           JANIPUR, JAMMU.

                                                 .... RESPONDENTS.





    (BY:
      1. SHRI NAND LAL THAKUR, ADDITIONAL
         ADVOCATE GENERAL, SHRI KUNAL THAKUR,
         DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL, SHRI RAM LAL




         THAKUR AND SHRI SUNNY DHATWALIA,
         ASSISTANT ADVOCATE GENERALS, FOR THE
         STATE.
      2. SHRI SATISH KUMAR, ADVOCATE, FOR

         RESPONDENT NO.2.)

           RESERVED ON :    20.8.2021
           DECIDED ON   :   23.8.2021



               This petition coming on for orders this day, the




    Court passed the following:
               ORDER

    FIR No.    Dated        Police Station            Sections





    337     of 17.11.2018 Boileauganj,                498-A of the IPC.
    2018                    District        Shimla,
                            H.P.

The petitioner, who stands arraigned as accused in the FIR mentioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the

proceedings given the compromise between the estranged wife and her in-laws.

2. Ld. Counsel for the parties submitted that the parties

.

have resolved the criminal dispute between them and seek quashing of the FIR mentioned above and closure of all

consequential proceedings.

ANALYSIS:

3. The following aspects would be relevant to conclude

this petition: -

a) The incident relates to matrimonial discord.

b) On 20.8.2021, this Court had recorded the statements

of husband-petitioner and wife-respondent No.2, wherein they testified about compromise and prayed for quashing of FIR.

c) The parties have amicably settled the matter between them in terms of the compromise deed (Annexure P-1).

The complainant does not dispute this compromise deed.

d) In the given facts, the occurrence was limited and confined between relatives and does not affect public peace

or tranquility.

e) The rejection of compromise may also lead to ill will, and the purpose of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory in nature and to work for bringing peace in family and society.

f) The pendency of trial affects career and happiness.

g) Even if this case is put to trial, the parties are likely to maintain the stand they have taken in this compromise, which is expected to result in the accused's acquittal.

.

h) Accused is the first offenders.

i) The accused is facing prosecution for the last more

than two years.

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ON QUASHING UNDER SECTION 498-A IPC:

4. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that [30]"It is a

matter of common experience that most of these complaints

under Section 498A Indian Penal Code are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not

even bonafide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry

harassment are also a matter of serious concern.[32]

Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by

the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.[33]. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate

relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in

.

dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The

allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely

different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.

Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead

to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's

relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of

suffering is extremely long and painful."

5. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., 2012(10) SCC 741, Para 28, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that "We,

therefore, deem it just and legally appropriate to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra as the FIR does not disclose any material which could be held to be constituting any offence against these two appellants. Merely by making a general allegation that they were also involved in physical and mental torture of the

complainant-respondent No. 2 without mentioning even a single incident against them as also the fact as to how they could be motivated to demand dowry when they are only

.

related as brother and sister of the complainant's husband, we are pleased to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings in

so far as these appellants are concerned and consequently the order passed by the High Court shall stand overruled." STAGE OF QUASHING FIR:

6. In Ashok Chaturvedi v Shitul H. Chanchani, 1998(7) SCC 698, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that the

determination of the question as regards the propriety of the

order of the Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing process need not necessarily wait till the stage of framing the charge. The Court holds, "...This argument, however, does not appeal

to us inasmuch as merely because an accused has a right to plead at the time of framing of charges that there is no

sufficient material for such framing of charges as provided in

Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he is debarred from approaching the court even at an earliest (sic earlier) point

of time when the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence and summons the accused to appear to contend that the very issuance of the order of taking cognizance is invalid on the ground that no offence can be said to have been made out on the allegations made in the complaint petition. It has been held in a number of cases that power under Section 482 has to be

exercised sparingly and in the interest of justice. But allowing the criminal proceeding to continue even where the allegations in the complaint petition do not make out any offence would be

.

tantamount to an abuse of the process of court, and therefore, there cannot be any dispute that in such case power under

section 482 of the Code can be exercised.

7. In Girish Sarwate v. State of A.P., 2005(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 758, the Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High

Court observed that the High Court need not wait for completion of investigation and taking cognizance by the

Magistrate.

    NON-COMPOUNDABLE                    OFFENCES             CAN            BE
    QUASHED:

8. In the present case, the offence under Section 498-A

IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC. However, in Saloni Rupam Bhartiya v Rupam Prahlad Bhartiya,

2015(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 172, a three Judges Bench of

Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with Section 498-A of IPC, which was non-compoundable offence, holds "It was

submitted by learned counsel for the parties that in the light of the above subsequent developments especially the fact that the marriage between the parties itself stands dissolved by a decree passed by a competent court, nothing really remained between the parties to be addressed and that the conviction of the respondent-husband under Section 498A of the Indian Penal

Code could be set aside. We see no reason to decline that prayer. In the circumstances, therefore, and in the light of the fact that the parties have successfully negotiated an amicable

.

settlement sinking and resolving all their differences and disputes and finding a lasting solution on all the outstanding

issues between themselves, we see no reason why the conviction recorded by the courts below and the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court, which the respondent

has already undergone should continue to blemish the respondent-husband. We accordingly set aside the judgment

and order of conviction of the respondent under Section 498A

of the Indian Penal Code."

CONCLUSION:

9. Although, the withdrawal of FIR would be through

District Magistrate as a routine procedure, yet the High Court has inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CRPC, to

intervene in such kind of matter. It is not the requirement of law

that the cancellation has to be approved only through the District Magistrate. Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court

under section 482 CrPC can always be exercised, depending upon the facts and circumstances. The parties are likely to live together for a lifetime, and intervention would create a cordial environment for peaceful relations between them. Given the entirety of the case and judicial precedents, I am of the

considered opinion that the continuation of these proceedings will not suffice any fruitful purpose whatsoever.

10. In the present case, the offenses are not

.

compoundable under section 320 CrPC. Be that as it may, this Court is inclined to invoke the inherent jurisdiction under

section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR and all subsequent proceedings in the peculiar facts and circumstances.

11. In Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association v State

of Himachal Pradesh, 2018 (4) Crimes 324, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds "[47]. As far as Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 135 of

2017 is concerned, the appellants came to this Court

challenging the order of cognizance only because of the reason that matter was already pending as the appellants had filed the Special Leave Petitions against the order of the High Court

rejecting their petition for quashing of the FIR/Chargesheet. Having regard to these peculiar facts, writ petition has also been

entertained. In any case, once we hold that FIR needs to be

quashed, order of cognizance would automatically stands vitiated."

12. In Shakuntala Sawhney v Kaushalya Sawhney, (1979) 3 SCR 639, at p 642, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the finest hour of Justice arises propitiously when parties, who fell apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship or reunion.

13. Given above, because of the compromise, this is a fit case where the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is invoked to

.

quash the proceedings mentioned above. The FIR mentioned above is quashed, and all the consequential proceedings are also

quashed and set aside. The bail bonds are accordingly discharged. All pending application(s), if any, stand closed.

In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case,

the petition is allowed in the aforementioned terms.

Anoop Chitkara,

Judge.

August 23 , 2021 (ks).