Bittu Ram Son Of Sh. Rajinder Pal vs State Of Haryana And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 4581 HP

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
               ON THE 17th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
                             BEFORE




                                                                                                   .
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA





    CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC No.158 of 2021

             Between:-





             BITTU RAM SON OF SH. RAJINDER PAL, AGE 29 YEARS,
             RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAJRA, P.O. BARUNA,
             TEHSIL NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN, H.P.
                                                 ...PETITIONER





             (BY MR. NITIN THAKUR, ADVOCATE)
             AND

             1.           STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY
                          (HOME) SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.


             2.           SEEMA DAUGHTER OF HARI KRISHAN WIFE OF BITTU
                          RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAJRA, P.O. BARUNA,
                          TEHSIL NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN, H.P.
                                                        ...RESPONDENTS


             (BY MR. ARVIND SHARMA, MR. P.K. BHATTI, MR. BHARAT
             BHUSHAN, ADDL. ADVOCATES GENERAL, MR. AMIT KUMAR
             DHUMAL, DY. ADVOCATE GENERAL AND MR. MANOJ BAGGA,
             ASSISTANT ADVOCATE GENERAL, FOR R-1)




             (BY MR. VIKRAM THAKUR, ADVOCATE, FOR R-2)
             1





                 WHETHER APPROVED FOR REPORTING? Yes.
                   This petition coming on for admission after notice this day, the Court
             passed the following :





                                                                      ORDER

The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (hereinafter to be called as "the Code"), has been maintained by

the petitioner for quashing of F.I.R No.88/2016 dated 13.5.2016, under Sections

376 (2) (N) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be called as

"IPC"), Section 4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012

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

and Section 3 (12) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention

of Atrocities), Act, 1989, registered at Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan,

H.P., alongwith all consequent proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R.,

.

pending before the learned trial Court.

2. Briefly stating the facts giving rise to the present petition, as per

the prosecution story, are that respondent No.2 made a complaint to the

police alleging therein that on 13.5.2016, around 8:45 a.m, when she went to

Nalagarh College, for appearing B. Com 2nd Year Semester, where the

petitioner met her and denied for appearing in the exam and told that her

brother has been kidnapped. When respondent No.2, came out from

College alongwith his motorcycle towards Kirpalpur, where the petitioner tried

to rape her and also threatened her. As a sequel to the statement of

respondent No.2, police registered an FIR against the petitioner. Now,

respondent No.2 entered into a compromise, on the basis of compromise

deed, dated 18.3.2021 (Annexure P-5), stating therein that she does not want

to pursue the case against the petitioner. However, respondent No.2 has

attained majority, aged 24 years and having one son about two years old

and they are living happily. Hence, the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the

parties have compromised the matter, no purpose will be served by keeping

the proceedings against the petitioner and the FIR/Challan, may be quashed

and set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has

argued that the offence is not compoundable, so the petition may be

dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the parties

have entered into compromise and so, the proceedings pending before the

learned Court below may be quashed.

.

6. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the parties, I have gone through the entire record in detail.

7. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court B.S. Joshi and

others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, have held that if for

the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes

necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of

quashing. It is well settled that the powers under section 482 have no limits. Of

course, where there is more power, it becomes necessary to exercise utmost

care and caution while invoking such powers. Their Lordships have held as

under:

[6] In Pepsi Food Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate

and others ((1998) 5 SCC 749), this Court with reference to Bhajan Lal's case observed that the guidelines laid therein as to where the Court will exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code could not be inflexible or laying rigid formulae to be followed by the Courts. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case but

with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is well settled that these powers have no limits. Of course, where there is more power, it becomes

necessary to exercise utmost care and caution while invoking such powers.

[8] It is, thus, clear that Madhu Limaye's case does not lay down

any general proposition limiting power of quashing the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint as vested in Section 482 of the Code or extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are, therefore, of the view that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.

[15] In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.

8. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta

and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) 7 SCC 667, have held

that the ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty

.

and protect the innocent. The tendency of implicating the husband and all

his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the

conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth.

Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour,

acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. The criminal

trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Their Lordships have further

held that permitting complainant to pursue complaint would be abuse of

process of law and the complaint against the appellants was quashed. Their

Lordships have held as under:

[27] A three-Judge Bench (of which one of us, Bhandari, J. was the author of the judgment) of this Court in Inder Mohan Goswami and Another v. State of Uttaranchal & Others, 2007 12 SCC 1 comprehensively examined the legal position. The court came to a definite conclusion

and the relevant observations of the court are reproduced in para 24 of the said judgment as under:-

"Inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when

such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the

court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute."

[28] We have very carefully considered the averments of the complaint and the statements of all the witnesses recorded at the time of

the filing of the complaint. There are no specific allegations against the appellants in the complaint and none of the witnesses have alleged any role of both the appellants.

[35] 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 scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

[36] 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.

[37] Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislature. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of

over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high

time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law.

[38] We direct the Registry to send a copy of this judgment to the Law

Commission and to the Union Law Secretary, Government of India who

may place it before the Hon'ble Minister for Law & Justice to take appropriate steps in the larger interest of the society.

9. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jitendra

Raghuvanshi and others vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and another, (2013) 4 SCC 58,

have held that criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint can be quashed

under Section 482 Cr. P.C. in appropriate cases in order to meet ends of

justice. Even in non-compoundable offences pertaining to matrimonial

disputes, if court is satisfied that parties have settled the disputes amicably

and without any pressure, then for purpose of securing ends of justice, FIR or

complaint or subsequent criminal proceedings in respect of offences can be

quashed. Their Lordships have held as under:

[13] As stated earlier, it is not in dispute that after filing of a complaint in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC, the parties, in the instant case, arrived at a mutual settlement and the complainant also has sworn an affidavit supporting the stand of the appellants. That was the position before the trial Court as well as before the High Court in a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code. A perusal of the impugned order of the High Court shows that because the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties relate to non- compoundable offence, the court proceeded on a wrong premise that it cannot be compounded and dismissed the petition filed under Section

482. A perusal of the petition before the High Court shows that the application filed by the appellants was not for compounding of non- compoundable offences but for the purpose of quashing the criminal proceedings.

[14] The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of

.

the Code are wide and unfettered. In B.S. Joshi , this Court has upheld the powers of the High Court under Section 482 to quash criminal

proceedings where dispute is of a private nature and a compromise is entered into between the parties who are willing to settle their differences amicably. We are satisfied that the said decision is directly applicable to the case on hand and the High Court ought to have

quashed the criminal proceedings by accepting the settlement arrived at.

[15] In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the court is satisfied that the

parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings.

[16] There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The institution of marriage occupies an important place and it has

an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be

made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction. It is trite to state that the power under Section

482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. We also make it clear that exercise of such power would

depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it has to be exercised in appropriate cases in order to do real and substantial justice

for the administration of which alone the courts exist. It is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and Section 482 of the Code enables the High Court and Article 142 of the Constitution enables this Court to pass such orders.

[17] In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in appropriate cases in order to meet the ends of justice and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. Under these circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 04.07.2012 passed in M.C.R.C. No. 2877 of 2012 and quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 4166 of 2011 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate Class-I, Indore."

10. Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias

Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another,

(2017) 9 Supreme Court Cases 641, wherein it has been held as under :

"16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

16.1. 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. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere

in the High Court;

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the

offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding 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; 16.4 While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the

ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any

court;

16.5 The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;

16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity

cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences

are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;

16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;

16.9 In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8 and 16.9 above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified

.

in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or

misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.

Even if, the trial is allowed to be continued, as the parties have

compromised the matter, there are bleak chances of conviction to secure

the ends of justice.

11. From the perusal of records, it is clear that petitioner and

respondent No.2 have solemnized their marriage out of their free will and

volition and a 'marriage certificate' (Annexure P-2) evidencing such

marriage has also been issued in their favour. When the parties have reached

the settlement, then the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure the

ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of any Court. After-all, the

Court ought not to interfere or even intervene when petitioner and

respondent No.2 are husband and wife in the eyes of law. This Court is

convinced that the continuation of the proceedings would tantamount to

abuse of process of law and would play havoc with the married life of

petitioner as also respondent No.2.

12. Thus, taking into consideration the law as discussed

hereinabove, I find that the interest of justice will be met, in case, the

proceedings are quashed, as the parties have already compromised the

matter.

13. Accordingly, looking into all attending facts and

circumstances, I find this case to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction vested in

this Court, under Section 482 of the Code and accordingly F.I.R No. 88/2016

dated 13.5.2016, under Sections 376 (2) (N) and 506 of the Indian Penal

Code, Section 4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012

and Section 3 (12) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention

.

of Atrocities), Act, 1989, registered at Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan,

H.P, is ordered to be quashed and consequently, the proceedings pending

before the learned Trial Court, arising out of the aforesaid FIR, are also

ordered to be quashed.

14. The petition is accordingly disposed of alongwith pending

applications, if any.

              Copy dasti.  r
                                        (Chander Bhusan Barowalia)

    th
17 September, 2021                               Judge
   (CS)