Vishal Chaudhary & Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 16953 HP

                                             1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                     Cr.MMO No. 672 of 2023
                                 Date of Decision: 20.10.2023




                                                                                      .
    _________________________________________________





    Vishal Chaudhary & others
                                                ....Petitioners
                          Versus





    State of Himachal Pradesh & others
                                              ...Respondents
    _________________________________________________
    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.




    Whether approved for reporting?1
    ________________________________________________
    For the petitioners:                         Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate.

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

    For respondents No.3 & 4:                    Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur,
                                                 Advocate.
    ________________________________________________


    Sushil Kukreja, Judge (Oral)

The accused persons (petitioners herein), after

compromising the matter with the prosecutrix/respondent No.

2 and complainant/respondent No. 3, have come up before

this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by invoking inherent

powers of this Court, seeking quashing of FIR No. 113 of

2022, dated 19.08.2022, under Sections 363, 366A, 376,

506, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC")

and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

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

Offences Act (for short "POCSO") registered at Police Station

Nagrota Bagwan, District Kangra, H.P..

.

2. The present FIR was lodged by the mother of the

prosecutrix (complainant) and today the prosecutrix/

respondent No. 2 (name withheld), complainant/respondent

No. 3 and the petitioner No. 1-accused are present in person

and the statements of respondents No. 2 and 3 and

petitioner No. 1 have been separately recorded and placed

on the file.

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

stated that on the basis of the complaint of her mother, FIR

No. 113 of 2022, dated 19.08.2022, under Sections 363,

366A, 376, 506, 201 and 34 IPC and Section 6 of the

POCSO Act, was registered gainst the petitioners-accused

persons at Police Station Nagrota Bagwan, District Kangra,

H.P.. She has further stated that the aforesaid FIR was

lodged due to some misunderstanding and now the parties

have entered into a compromise, vide compromise deed,

Annexure P-2, as she had solemnized marriage with

petitioner No. 1-Vishal Chaudhary on 18.10.2023, as per her

own free will/consent and without any external pressure and

they are residing happily as husband and wife under the

same roof. She has also stated that she has no objection in

case the aforesaid FIR and the consequent proceedings,

.

arising out of the said FIR, pending before the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court (Rape &

POCSO), Kangra at Dharamshala, are quashed and set

aside.

4. Similarly, the complainant/respondent No. 3

stated that on the basis of her complaint, FIR No. 113 of

2022, dated 19.08.2022, under Sections 363, 366A, 376,

506, 201 and 34 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act was

registered agaisnt the petitioners-accused persons at Police

Station Nagrota Bagwan, District Kangra, H.P.. She has

further stated that the aforesaid FIR was lodged due to some

misunderstanding and now the parties have entered into a

compromise, vide compromise deed, Annexure P-2, as her

daughter (prosecutrix) had solemnized marriage with the

petitioner No. 1-Vishal Chaudhary on 18.10.2023 and they

are residing happily, as husband and wife under the same

roof. She has also stated that she has no objection in case

the aforesaid FIR and the consequent proceedings, arising

out of the said FIR, pending before the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court (Rape & POCSO), Kangra

at Dharamshala, are quashed and set-aside.

.

5. The petitioner No. 1-Vishal Chaudhary stated

that FIR No. 113 of 2022, daed 19.08.2022, under Sections

363, 366A, 376, 506, 201 and 34 IPC and Section 6 of the

POCSO Act, was registered against him and petitioners No.

2 and 3 at Police Station Nagrota Bagwan, District Kangra,

H.P.. He has further stated that the aforesaid FIR was

lodged due to some misunderstanding and now the parties

have entered into a compromise, vide compromise deed,

Annexure P-2, as he has solemnized marriage with

respondent No. 1 (prosecutrix) on 18.10.2023, as per his

own free will/consent and without any external pressure and

they are residing happily as husband and wife under the

same roof. He has also stated that the aforesaid FIR and the

consequent proceedings, arising out of the said FIR, pending

before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track

Curt (Rape & POCSO), Kangra at Dharamshala, may be

quahsed and set-aside.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners,

learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.

1/State, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 and

also gone through the material available on record.

.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. The Hon'ble 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. The broad principles which emerge from the

precedents on the subject may be summarized in the

following propositions:-

"(i) 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 recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

(ii) 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.

(iii) 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;

(iv) 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;

(v) 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;

(vi) 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;

(vii) 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;

(viii) 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;

(ix) 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

(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) 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."

10. Although, as per the directions of the Supreme

Court in Parbatbhai Aahir's case supra, the FIR should not

be quashed in case of rape as it is a heinous offence, but

when complainant-prosecutrix herself takes the initiative and

states that now she is married with the petitioner-accused

and living happily with him under one roof, in my considered

opinion, in such cases, there will be no purpose in continuing

with the trial as ultimately, in case of continuation of trial, the

result will be of acquittal in favour of the accused persons.

11. In Kapil Gupta vs State of NCT of Delhi and

another, (Criminal Appeal No. 1217 of 2022 decided on

10.08.2022), the Supreme Court while considering an appeal

against an order of High Court of Delhi rejecting a quashing

petition for proceedings under Section 376 IPC, has held that

though court should be slow in quashing the proceedings

wherein heinous and serious offences are involved, the High

Court is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there

exists material for incorporation of such an offence or as to

whether there is sufficient evidence which if proved would

lead to proving the charge for the offence charged with. The

court has also to take into consideration as to whether the

.

settlement between the parties is going to result into

harmony between them, which may improve their mutual

relationship. The relevant portion of the judgment (supra)

reads as under:

"12. No doubt that the learned ASG is right in

relying on various judgments of this Court which reiterate the legal position that in heinous and serious offences like murder or rape, the Court should not quash the

proceedings. It will be relevant to refer to paragraph 29.5 to 29.6 of the judgment of

this Court in the case of Narender Singh versus State of Punjab, which read thus:

"29.5 While exercising its powers, the

High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal

cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice

and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.

29.6 Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed

under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC

.

is there for the sake of it or the

prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307

IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on

the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim r can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima

facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of

conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings

whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the

High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between

the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship."

12. This Court is aware that offences like rape

cannot be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section

482 Cr.P.C. if a compromise has been reached, but, at the

same time, this Court cannot ignore and overlook the future

.

of the prosecutrix. In the facts of the case, since the

petitioner No. 1-accused has married the prosecutrix

(respondent No. 2) and they are living happily and peacefully

under one roof, continuation of the proceedings would cause

immense harm to them, as the same may adversely affect

their marital life. Moreover, in view of the compromise, the

settlement between the parties is going to result into

harmony between them. Therefore, I am of the considered

view that no fruitful purpose will be served to continue the

proceedings against the petitioners-accused persons, as

continuation of the proceedings will be an exercise in futility.

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.

13. 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. 113 of 2022, dated 19.08.2022, under

Sections 363, 366A, 376, 506, 201 and 34 IPC and Section 6

of the POCSO Act, registered against the petitioners-

accused persons, at Police Station Nagrota Bagwan, District

.

Kangra, H.P., and the consequent proceedings, arising out of

the said FIR, pending before the Court of learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court (Rape & POCSO), Kangra

at Dharamshala, are quashed and set-aside.

14. Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so

also the pending application(s), if any.

                           r                       ( Sushil Kukreja )
      th

    20 October, 2023                                    Judge
           (virender)