Sumit Sood vs State Of H.P. & Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 1219 HP

                                                                             .
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA





                                        Cr.MMO Nos. 405 to 407 of 2020
                                        Date of Decision 24th Feb., 2021





    ________________________________________________________

    FAO No. 405 of 2020
    Sumit Sood                                                           ...Petitioner





                                                   Versus

    State of H.P. & another                                              ....Respondents
    FAO No. 406 of 2020
    Madhu Sood
                          r                                              ...Petitioner

                                                   Versus

    State of H.P. & another                                              ....Respondents
    FAO No. 407 of 2020


    Tek Chand Sood                                                       ...Petitioner

                                                   Versus




    State of H.P. & another                                              ....Respondents





    Coram

    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

Whether approved for reporting?1 ______________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate in all petitions.

For the Respondents: Ms. Rameeta Rahi, Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1.

Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

Mr. Bhairav Gupta, Advocate vice Mr.Ajay Kochhar, Advocate, for

.

respondent No.2.

__________________________________________________________________ Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

All these petitions are disposed of together in order

to avoid repetition and for the sake convenience, as these

petitions have been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for

quashing of one and the same FIR No. 8 of 2017, registered

under Sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian

Penal Code (hereinafter in short 'IPC') at Police Station Mahila

Thana, B.C.S. New Shimla, District Shimla HP against the

petitioner(s) and quashing of proceedings initiated in pursuant

thereto pending in the concerned Court.

2 Ms. Atul Sood complainant in this case, who has been

arrayed as respondent No.2 in each petition, had appeared on

23.12.2020 and vide separate statement on oath, she had stated

that she had been married with petitioner Mr.Sumit Sood on

8.10.2000 and out of their wedlock, they had been blessed with

two daughters namely Inayat and Nyssa, aged about 14 and 16

years, respectively and the matrimonial dispute amongst them

led to lodging of FIR No. 8 of 2017 by her in Mahila Police Station,

New Shimla, District Shimla HP and also filing of application

under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance and execution

proceedings for getting the maintenance. Further that now

.

matter has been amicably settled between them and to that

effect, a settlement/agreement has been reduced into writing,

copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure P-3 with

the petitions. She has endorsed the same to be true and correct

and stated that original settlement/agreement has been filed

with divorce petitioner filed for dissolution of marriage with

mutual consent under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act in

Family Court, Shimla. She has also identified her signatures on

photocopy of settlement agreement and in view of settlement

arrived at between them, she does not intend to continue with

the criminal proceedings initiated against petitioner(s) arising out

of FIR No. 8 of 2017 lodged by her in Mahila Police Station New

Shimla. She has further stated that she has no objection for

quashing of FIR and criminal proceedings arising thereto and she

has entered into compromise and also deposed in Court out of

her free will, consent and also without any external pressure,

coercion or threat of any kind.

3 Today, petitioner(s) Sumit Sood, Madhu Sood and Tek

Chand Sood are present in Court and vide separate statement on

oath, petitioner Sumit Sood has endorsed the statement made by

Ms.Atul Sood, complainant and has stated that he was married to

her on 8th October, 2001 and out of their wedlock, they have

been blessed with two daughters namely Inayat and Nyssa, aged

.

about 16 and 14 years respectively, but, they could not continue

their marital relations and matrimonial dispute has ended in

dissolution of marriage on the basis of mutual consent and to

that effect decree has also been passed by Family Court, Shimla

on 28th December, 2020. He has also stated that as per

settlement arrived at, they have agreed to bear the expenses of

one child each who is studying in Sindhi School, Gwalior and

settlement has been reduced into writing, copy whereof has

been placed on record as Annexure P3. He has endorsed the

conditions contained therein with assurance to abide by all terms

and conditions and in pursuance to settlement arrived at

between them, complainant Ms. Atul Sood had agreed to take

steps to quash the FIR and in terms thereof, she had appeared in

Court on 23rd December, 2020 and had deposed to that effect. It

is also stated by him that he has deposed in Court and signed

the compromise Annexure P-3 out of his free will, consent and

also without any kind of threat, coercion or pressure etc.

4 Petitioners Madhu Sood and Tek Chand Sood, who are

parents of petitioner Sumit Sood, vide their separate statements

in their respective petition, have also endorsed the above stated

statements of complainant Ms. Atul Sood and petitioner Sumit

Sood as true and correct and stated that they have entered into

the compromise out of their free will, consent and without any

.

kind of threat, coercion or pressure etc.

5 Quashing of FIR in present petition has been prayed

on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties,

photocopy whereof has been placed on record, which is duly

signed by parties. All of them have endorsed the compromise.

6 In status report, filed on behalf of respondent/State,

the registration of FIR in question has been admitted, but, factum

of compromise has been denied for want of knowledge.

7 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.

8 The Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias

Parbathbhai 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.

9 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.

10 No doubt Sections 498-A IPC is not compoundable

only with the permission of Court. 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 CrPC, 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.

11 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.

12 Now, the matrimonial life between the complainant

and petitioner Sumit Sood has been dissolved with mutual

consent and complainant has agreed to quash the FIR lodged by

her against her husband and his family members, therefore, I am

of the considered view that no fruitful purpose shall be served by

continuing the proceedings against the petitioners.

13 Further, offence in question as alleged does not fall

in the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms

of the pronouncements of the Apex Court by exercising power

under Section 482 of the CrPC.

14 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. 8 of 2017, dated 26.04.2017, registered against the

petitioners/accused under Sections 498-A and 506 read with

Section 34 IPC at P.S. Mahila Police Station New Shimla, District

Shimla HP is quashed. Consequent to quashing of said FIR,

criminal proceedings pending in the concerned Court are also

quashed.

.

Petitions stand disposed of in above terms, so also

pending application, if any.

    February 24, 2021                  (Vivek Singh Thakur)
    (ms)                                      Judge



                   r           to