Manish Kumar vs State Of
2022 Latest Caselaw 5364 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
                ON THE 7th DAY OF JULY, 2022
                          BEFORE
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR




                                                             .
      CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC No. 475 OF





                              2022
BETWEEN:­
 1. MANISH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,





 SON OF SH. BALBIR CHAND, R/O VILLAGE
 GOPAL NAGAR, P.O. DADUHI, TEHSIL &
 DISTT. HAMIRPUR,H.P.
                                                   PETITIONER





 2. SMT. NEHA, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, WIFE
 OF SH. MANISH KUMAR, R/O VILLAGE GOPAL
 NAGAR, POST OFFICE DADUHI, TEHSIL &
 DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, H.P.


 (BY MR. HARISH SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

 AND



 1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH
 ITS SECRETARY (HOME) TO THE
 H.P.GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,




 SECRETARIAT­SHIMLA­2.





 2. MADAN, SON OF SH.KALU RAM, R/O VILLAGE
 KYANA, P.O. & SUB TEHSIL­JUNGA, DISTT.
 SHIMLA,H.P                                                    RESPONDENTS





(MR. RAJU RAM RAHI, DEPUTY
 ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR R­1
 (MR. BHIM RAJ, ADVOCATE , FOR
  R­2)
    whether approved for Reporting?

              This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court
passed the following:




                                            ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2022 20:02:08 :::CIS
                                         2



                                  ORDER

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

Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC') has been filed by petitioners on

.

the basis of compromise arrived at between them and respondent No. 2 for

quashing of FIR No. 38 of 2020, dated 22.02.2020, registered in Police Station

Dhalli, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh under Section 363 of the Indian Penal

Code (in short 'IPC') and consequent proceedings arising thereto.

2. Manish Kumar (Petitioner No.1), Neha (Petitioner No.2) and

Madan (Respondent No.3) are present in the Court today and their

statements, on oath, have been recorded separately. They have been duly

identified by their respective learned counsel.

3. Complainant­respondent No.2, in his statement, has stated that,

in present case, F.I.R was lodged by him on 22.2.2020 as he was informed by friend

of his daughter Neha (petitioner No.2) that at about 5.p.m., his daughter had gone

with Manish Kumar (petitioner No.1) in a vehicle towards Junga. He has further

stated that after that police came into action and his daughter was recovered from

the vehicle and brought home. He has further stated that Date of Birth of his

daughter is 2.6.2002 and after attaining age of majority on 2.6.2020, she has

solemnized marriage with Manish Kumar (petitioner No.1) on 15.6.2020. He has

further stated that the said marriage has also been registered with Gram Panchayat

Daduhi, Tehsil and District Hamirpur in Panchayat Record in Marriage

Registration Register at Sr. No.13, dated 24.8.2020, and thereafter his daughter

and son­in­law Manish Kumar (petitioner No.1) are residing in Village Gopal Nagar,

Tehsil and District Hamirpur. He has further stated that now her daughter is

living happily with petitioner and they have been blessed with a son namely

Shaurya out of wedlock. He has further stated that FIR was lodged by him to

.

protect the interest of his daughter Neha and now she has married with Manish

Kumar (petitioner No.1) and living happy life and now continuation of criminal case

is affecting the interest of his daughter Neha adversely and, therefore, he has

decided to withdraw the complaint and not to continue criminal proceedings against

the petitioner.

4.

Manish Kumar (petitioner No.1) has endorsed the statement of

respondent No.2 with further deposition that he came in contact of Neha through

telephonic conversation and they decided to marry. He has further stated that they

have solemnized marriage with each other and have been blessed with a son namely

Shaurya. He has undertaken to keep his wife happily and to maintain her and their

children.

5. Neha (Respondent No.2) has endorsed the statements made by

her father and her husband Manish Kumar. She has stated that quashing of

FIR and closure of criminal proceedings shall be in her interest as well as in

the interest of their family.

6. Petitioners and respondent No.2 have stated that they have

entered into compromise and deposed in the Court, out of their free will and

consent and without any threat or coercion of any kind.

7. It is contended on behalf of respondent No.1­State that

petitioner is 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.

8. 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 favour 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. No doubt, Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code is 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 Cr.PC 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.

12. 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.

13. Now, the matter has been amicably settled between the private

parties, as such, I am of the considered view that no fruitful purpose shall be

served to continue the proceedings against accused­ respondent.

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. 38/2020, dated 22.02.2020,

registered in Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla H.P. is quashed.

Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings pending/ initiated

against petitioner­accused in pursuance thereto, are also quashed.

15. Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending

application(s), if any.

16. The parties are permitted to use/produce copy of this judgment,

downloaded from the web­page 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),
 th
7 July, 2022                                           Judge.
  (veena)



                       r            to