Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sh.Dev Raj vs State Of Punjab And Ors. Reported ... on 2 December, 2021
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 2nd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC NO.18 OF
2019
Between:-
1. SH.DEV RAJ
S/O SH.SUKH RAJ,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SANGHNAI,
P.S. GAGRET, TEHSIL GHANARI,
DISTRICT UNA, (H.P.)
2. ROHIT MINHAS
S/O SH. DEV RAJ,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SANGHNAI,
P.S. GAGRET, TEHSIL GHANARI,
DISTRICT UNA, (H.P.)
3. SMT.NEELAM KUMARI
W/O SH.DEV RAJ,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SANGHNAI,
P.S. GAGRET, TEHSIL GHANARI,
DISTRICT UNA, (H.P.)
4. UPENDER SINGH
S/O SH. HARBANS LAL,
R/O VILLAGE NAGNOLI, TEHSIL
HAROLI, DISTRICT UNA, H.P.
5. RAHUL
S/O SH. DEV RAJ,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SANGHNAI,
P.S. GAGRET, TEHSIL GHANARI,
DISTRICT UNA, (H.P.)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SH.N.K. THAKUR, SENIOR
ADVOCATE, ALONGWITH M/S DIVYA
RAJ SINGH AND KARAN VEER SINGH,
ADVOCATES)
(PETITIONER NO.1-DEV RAJ,
PETITIOENR NO.2-ROHIT MINHAS,
PETITIONER NO.4-UPENDER SINGH
AND PETITIONER NO.5-RAHUL ARE
PRESENT IN PERSON)
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:22:26 :::CIS
2
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
(BY SH. ANIL JASWAL, ADDITIONAL
ADVOCATE GENERAL)
.
2. MS.NIHARIKA
D/O SHIV CHARAN SINGH,
VILLAGE & P.O. GHANARI,
P.S GAGRET, DISTT. UNA, (H.P.)
...RESPONDENTS
(M/S ROOP LAL CHAUDHARY & H.R.
SIDHU, ADVOCATES)
(RESPONDENT NO.2 IS PRESENT IN
PERSON)
Whether approved for reporting?
This petition coming on for presence of parties this
day, the Court passed the following:
JUDGMENT
The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC') has been
filed by petitioners Dev Raj, Rohit Minhas, Neelam Kumari, Upender
Singh and Rahul, on the basis of compromise arrived at between
them and respondent No.2-complainant, for quashing of FIR No.13
of 2018, dated 18.01.2018, registered in Police Station Gagret H.P.,
under Sections 376, 341, 504, 506 and 120B read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and Section 3 of Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as the 'SC & ST Act') and consequent
proceedings arising thereto pending before learned Special Judge,
Una, District Una, H.P.
2. Today, petitioner No.1-Dev Raj, petitioner No.2-Rohit
Minhas, petitioner No.4-Upender Singh and petitioner No.5-Rahul as
well as respondent No.2-complainant are present in the Court, who
are duly identified by their learned counsel and their statements on
.
oath have also been recorded separately in the Court.
3. In her statement, complainant-respondent No.2-
Ms.Niharika has stated that she was contacted by Rahul-petitioner
No.5 on Facebook with friendship request, which was accepted by
her and they had developed intimacy and decided to marry each
other and for materializing their proposal of marriage they had
sworn-in affidavit which was attested by the Notary at
Jogindernagar, but marriage, as a matter of fact, was not
materialized, as their proposal of marriage was not accepted by
family members of petitioner No.5, who are petitioners No.1 to 4
whereupon for acts and conduct of the petitioners she has lodged
FIR in present case for her victimization as narrated in the FIR. She
has further stated that in the intervening time, her marriage has
been solemnized with Sahil Kumar, resident of VPO Talwara, Tehsil
Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab and now she is residing in her
matrimonial house and the couple has been blessed with a female
child five days ago and further that she does not want to carry the
past with her and for living in peace, she has decided to withdraw
the complaint and not to continue with criminal proceedings arising
thereto against the petitioners, as continuation thereof shall
adversely affect her future prospects as well as her family life
harming her interest as well as interest of her child and, therefore,
she has no objection for allowing the petition by permitting her to
withdraw the complaint for quashing of FIR and criminal
proceedings arising thereto. She has also stated that she has
deposed in this Court, out of her free will, consent and without any
external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.
4. In their joint statement, petitioner No.1-Dev Raj,
.
petitioner No.2-Rohit Minhas, petitioner No.4-Upender Singh and
petitioner No.5-Rahul have endorsed the statement made by
respondent No.2-Niharika to be true and correct and have stated
that for entire episode they are having feeling of guilt for which
they apologize and as now respondent No.2 has been married and
is living in her matrimonial house peacefully and harmoniously, they
have no relation or claim against her. They have also stated that
they have deposed in this Court, out of their free will, consent and
without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.
5. It is contended on behalf of respondent No.1-State that
petitioners-accused are not entitled to invoke inherent jurisdiction
of this Court to exercise its power on the basis of compromise
arrived at between the parties with respect to an offence not
compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C.
6. Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs.
State of Punjab and Ors. reported in(2012) 10 SCC 303, explaining
that High Court has inherent power under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure with no statutory limitation including Section
320 Cr.PC, has held that these powers are to be exercised to
secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any
Court and these powers can be exercised to quash criminal
proceedings or complaint or FIR in appropriate cases where
offender and victim have settled their dispute and for that purpose
no definite category of offence can be prescribed. However, it is
also observed that Courts must have due regard to nature and
gravity of the crime and criminal proceedings in heinous and
serious offences or offence like murder, rape and dacoity etc.
should not be quashed despite victim or victim family have settled
.
the dispute with offender. Jurisdiction vested in High Court under
Section 482 Cr.PC is held to be exercisable for quashing criminal
proceedings in cases having overwhelming and predominatingly
civil flavour particularly offences arising from commercial, financial,
mercantile, civil partnership, or such like transactions, or even
offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc., family
disputes or other such disputes where wrong is basically private or
personal nature where parties mutually resolve their dispute
amicably. It was also held that no category or cases for this purpose
could be prescribed and each case has to be dealt with on its own
merit but it is also clarified that this power does not extend to
crimes against society.
7. The Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbhathbhai
Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another,
(2017) 9 SCC 641, summarizing the broad principles regarding
inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
recognized that these powers are not inhibited by provisions of
Section 320 Cr.P.C.
8. The Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others vs.
State of Punjab and others reported in (2014)6 SCC 466 and also in
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (2019) 5 SCC
688, has summed up and laid down principles by which the High
Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the
settlement between the parties and exercise its power under
Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and
quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with
direction to continue with criminal proceedings.
9. No doubt Section 376 of IPC and Section 3 of SC & ST
.
Act are not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., however, as
explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's, Narinder
Singh's, Parbatbhai Aahir's and Laxmi Narayan's cases supra, power
of High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC is not inhibited by the
provisions of Section 320 CrPC and FIR as well as criminal
proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under
Section 482 Cr.PC, if warranted in given facts and circumstances of
the case for ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of
any Court, even in those cases which are not compoundable where
parties have settled the matter between themselves.
10. In Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC
582, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized and advised that in
the matter of compromise in criminal proceedings, keeping in view
of nature of this case, to save the time of the Court for utilizing to
decide more effective and meaningful litigation, a commonsense
approach, based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities
of law, should be applied.
11. Learned counsel for the accused/petitioner has also
referred to judgments passed by the Coordinate Benches in Cr.MMO
No. 301 of 2018, decided on 24.04.2019, titled as Asha Devi &
others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & another; Cr.MMO No. 399 of
2018, decided on 18.09.2018, titled Court of H.P. as Kajal &
another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & another; Cr.MMO No. 244
of 2019, decided on 07.05.2019 titled as X vs. State of H.P. &
others, Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 139 of 2018, decided on
26.5.2018, titled Sahil Chaudhary vs. State of H.P. and another,
Cr.MMO No. 464 of 2018 decided on 9.8.2019 titled as Shri Devi vs.
State of H.P. and another, Cr.MMO No. 377 of 2019 decided on
.
27.8.2019 titled as Shishpal vs. State of H.P. and another; Cr.MMO
No. 41 of 2019 decided on 24.9.2019 titled as Ravi Goyal and
another vs. State of H.P. and others; Rahul Thakur Vs. State of H.P.,
reported in 2020(2) Shim.LC 629; Cr.MMO No. 423 of 2020, titled as
Rajneesh Kumari Vs. State, decided on 15.3.2021; and Cr.MMO No.
144 of 2021, Ashok Kumar Vs. State, decided on 27.4.2021, wherein
FIRs registered under Section 376 IPC and in some cases under
Section 376 IPC read with provisions of POCSO Act have also been
quashed in similar circumstances where victims and accused had
married to each other.
12. It is a case where two societal interests are in clash. To
punish the offenders for a crime, involved in present case, is in the
interest of society, but, at the same time, respondent-victim has
solemnized marriage with Sahil Kumar and they have blessed with a
female child and are living happily and harmoniously and it is also
in the interest of society to settle and re-settle the family for their
welfare. Respondent No.2-complainant has submitted that she
intends to withdraw complaint as continuation of case shall
adversely affect her future prospects as well as her family life
harming her interest as well as interest of her child.
13. Considering facts and circumstances of the case in
entirety, I am of the opinion that present petition deserves to be
allowed for ends of justice and the same is allowed accordingly and
FIR No.13 of 2018, dated 18.01.2018, registered in Police Station
Gagret, District Una, H.P., is quashed. Consequent to quashing of
FIR, criminal proceedings pending before learned Special Judge,
Una, District Una, H.P., initiated against petitioners-accused
persons in pursuance thereto, are also quashed.
.
14. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.
15. Petitioners are permitted to produce a copy of this
judgment, downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of
Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities concerned, and the said
authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy but if
required, may verify it from Website of the High Court.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
Judge.
December 2, 2021
(Purohit)
