_________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 16033 HP

                                             1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                     Cr.MMO No. 888 of 2023




                                                                                      .
                                 Date of Decision: 11.10.2023





    _________________________________________________
     Sahil Gaget & others
                                                ....Petitioners





                          Versus
    State of Himachal Pradesh & another
                                              ...Respondents
    _________________________________________________




    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?1
    ________________________________________________
    For the petitioners:
                        r                        Mr. Ravi Tegta, Advocate.

    For respondent No. 1/State:                  Mr. Jitender Kumar Sharma,
                                                 Additional Advocate General.
    For respondent No. 2:        Mr. Hitesh Thakur, Advocate.


    ________________________________________________
    Sushil Kukreja, Judge (Oral)

The accused persons (petitioners herein) after

compromising the matter with complainant/respondent No. 2,

have come up before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,

by invoking inherent powers of this Court, seeking quashing

of FIR No. 06 of 2017, dated 09.02.2017, under Sections

498-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"),

registered at Women Police Station Mandi, District Mandi,

H.P..

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

2. The present FIR was lodged by complainant-

respondent No. 2, Smt. Sarla Kumari, who is present before

.

this Court today and her statement has been separately

recorded and placed on the file.

3. In her statement, complainant/respondent No.2

stated that on the basis of her complaint, FIR No. 06 of 2017,

dated 09.02.2017, was registered against the petitioners,

under Sections 498-A and 34 IPC, at Women Police Station

Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.. She has further stated that now,

with the intervention of the respectable persons of the society

and with a view to maintain good relations in future, the

matter has been amicably settled between the parties, vide

compromise deed, Annexure P-2. She has also stated that

in view of the compromise, Annexure P-2, she has no

objection, in case FIR No. 06 of 2017, dated 09.02.2017,

under Sections 498-A and 34 IPC, registered at Women

Police Station Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., alongwith the

consequent proceedings, arising out of the said FIR, are

quashed and set-aside.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners,

learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.

1/State as well as the learned counsel for

complainant/respondent No. 2 and also gone through the

.

material available on record.

5. In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others,

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, the Hon'ble Apex Court 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 offences like murder, rape and

dacoity etc. should not be quashed despite victim or victim's

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 predominately 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.

6. Further, 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.PC. has recognized

that these powers are not inhibited by provisions of Section

320 Cr.PC.

7. 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, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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.

8.

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 the nature of the case, to save

the time of the Court for utilizing to decide more effective and

meaningful litigation, a common sense approach, based on

ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of law,

should be applied.

9. In the instant case, since the matter has been

amicably settled between the parties, therefore, keeping in

view the nature of the offence, I am of the considered view

that no fruitful purpose will be served to continue the

proceedings against petitioners/accused persons, as

continuation of the proceedings will be an exercise in futility.

Therefore, the justice in the case demands that the dispute

.

between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored in

order to maintain harmonious relations/atmosphere between

them.

10. Hence, considering the facts and the

circumstances of the case in entirety, I am of the opinion that

the present petition deserves to be allowed for securing the

ends of justice and, therefore, the same is allowed.

Accordingly, FIR No. 06 of 2017, dated 09.02.2017, under

Sections 498-A and 34 IPC, registered against the

petitioners/accused persons, at Women Police Station

Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., and the consequent

proceedings, if any, arising out of the said FIR, are ordered

to be quashed and set-aside.

11. Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so

also the pending application(s), if any.

                                                         ( Sushil Kukreja )
    11th October, 2023                                        Judge
            (virender)