Himachal Pradesh High Court
Pankaj Kumar Son Of Shri vs Unknown on 7 December, 2021
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 7th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL
CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC No. 619 OF 2021
Between:-
1. PANKAJ KUMAR SON OF SHRI
KRIPAL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 25
YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
KUKRIANA (741), POST OFFICE
DOLA KHARIANA, TEHSIL
KHUNDIAN, DISTRICT KANGRA,
HIMACHAL PRADESH-176030.
2. PALAK RAJ, WIFE OF SHRI
PANKAJ KUMAR AGED ABOUT
20 YEARS, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE KUKRIANA (741), POST
OFFICE DOLA KHARIANA,
TEHSIL KHUNDIAN, DISTRICT
KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH-
176030
..........PETITIONERS
(BY MR. SANDEEP CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY
HOME TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-
171002.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF
POLICE, KANGRA DISTRICT
(CHILGARI, BESIDE DC OFFICE
DHARAMSHALA), KANGRA AT
DHARAMSHALA, HIMACHAL
PRADESH-176215.
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:24:02 :::CIS
2
3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
(SHO), POLICE STATION
KHUNDIAN, DISTRICT KANGRA,
HIMACHAL PRADESH-176030.
.
4. SHRI LEKH RAJ SON OF SHRI
CHUNI LAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
KHALAG,L POST OFFICE DOLA
KHARIANA, TEHSIL KHUNDIAN,
DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL
PRADESH 176030.
5. SMT. SARLA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI
LEKH RAJ, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
KHALAG, POST OFFICE DOLA
KHARIANA, TEHSIL KHUNDIAN,
DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL
PRADESH-176030.
........RESPONDENTS
(M/S SUMESH RAJ, ADARSH SHARMA AND
SANJEEV SOOD, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERALS WITH MR. KAMAL KANT
CHANDEL, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL
FOR R-1 TO R-3;)
___________________________________________________________
Whether approved for reporting:
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court
passed the following:-
ORDER
As per report of the Registry, respondent No. 4 could
not be served as said respondent is stated to be out of station.
Respondent No. 5, who happens to be the wife of respondent No.
4, stands duly served, however, none has put in appearance on
her behalf.
2. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners are jointly praying
.
for quashing of FIR No. 66 of 2017, dated 22.08.2017, registered
at Police Station Khundian, District Kangra, HP, under Sections
376, 328, 323, 341, 201 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 4 of the POCSO Act, as well as ensuing criminal
proceedings, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Fast
Track Court (under POCSO Act), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.
on the ground that the victim and the accused are happily
married since 9th November, 2020, and in these circumstances,
as the lodging of the FIR was on account of some
misunderstanding, which took place between the parties as far
back as in the year 2017 when the FIR in issue was lodged, it
will be in the interest of justice, in case, this petition is allowed
and the ensuing criminal proceedings, are ordered to be
quashed so that the parties can live in peace and harmony.
Statement of the victim, who has been duly identified by her
Counsel Mr. Sandeep Chauhan, has been separately recorded,
wherein she has deposed that she is married with the accused/
petitioner No. 1 and she has no objection in case this petition is
allowed as prayed for.
3. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Narinder Singh
and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2014) 6
.
Supreme Court Cases 466, while dwelling upon Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, has laid down certain guidelines
under which this power is to be exercised by the High Courts
and one of the parameters laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court
is as to whether the exercise of jurisdiction so vested under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would meet 'the
ends of justice'.
4. This Court is of the considered view that taking into
consideration the peculiar facts of this case, the jurisdiction so
vested should be exercised by the Court to meet the ends of
justice. The victim and petitioner No. 1/accused are married
together and happily living as husband and wife. It is not as if
the marriage has been solemnized by the accused just to get rid
of this FIR and ensuing criminal proceedings as the marriage
took place in the month of November, 2020 and present
proceedings have been initiated by the accused after one year.
This Court had open discussion with the victim and she has
stated in the Court that she is being looked after well by the
petitioner/ accused and she is happily leading her life as the
wife of petitioner No. 1. In these peculiar circumstances, this
Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice demand
that the FIR in issue as also ensuing criminal proceedings
.
should be quashed and set aside so that the parties can live in
peace and harmony, without any threat or stigma of the said
criminal proceedings hovering over their heads.
5. Accordingly, in view of the discussion held
hereinabove, this petition is allowed and and FIR No. 66 of 2017,
dated 22.08.2017, registered at Police
r Station Khundian,
District Kangra, HP, under Sections 376, 328, 323, 341, 201
and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO
Act, as well as ensuing criminal proceedings, pending in the
Court of learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court (under POCSO
Act), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., are ordered to be quashed
and set aside, taking into consideration the fact that victim and
accused/petitioner No. 1 are married to each other, are living in
peace and harmony and leading their married life happily.
Statement made by the victim/complainant on oath to this effect
in the Court, shall form part of the judgment.
The petition is accordingly disposed of in above
terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
December 07, 2021
(narender)
