Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jaram Singh vs State Of H.P.& Ors on 5 January, 2024
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr. MMO No. 611 of 2023
Decided on : 5.1.2024
.
Jaram Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P.& ors. ...Respondents
of
____________________________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge
rt
Whether approved for reporting?
____________________________________________________
For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Divya Raj
Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma Addl.
A.G. with Ms. Leena Guleria,
Dy. A.G., for respondent No.
1.
Mr. Nitish Negi, Advocate,
for respondents No. 2 and 3.
Virender Singh, Judge (oral)
The petitioner has filed the present petition,
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr. P.C.') seeking
quashing of FIR No. 95 of 2020, dated 28.7.2020,
(hereinafter referred to as 'the FIR in question'), under
Sections 307, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC') registered with
.
Police Station, Kihar, District Chamba, H.P., as well as,
the proceedings resultant thereto, pending in the Court
of learned Sessions Judge, Chamba (hereinafter
of
referred to as 'the trial Court), in view of the
compromise, having been effected, between the parties.
2.
rt
As per the stand taken in the petition,
respondent No. 2 is daughter-in-law of the petitioner,
whereas, respondent No. 3 is wife of the petitioner. It is
the further case of the petitioner that due to some mis-
understanding, respondent No. 2 had lodged the FIR in
question, against him.
3. After registration of the FIR, on statement of
respondent No. 2, criminal machinery swung into
motion. After completion of the investigation, report
under Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C. was submitted in the
learned trial Court.
4. Now, the petitioner is before this Court, with a
prayer to quash the FIR in question, as well as, the
proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the
.
learned trial Court, on the basis of compromise, which
has taken place between the parties, as respondent No.
2 is daughter-in-law of the petitioner and respondent
of
No. 3 is his wife, and in order to maintain their cordial
relations, they have compromised the matter. The terms
rt
and conditions of the compromise have been reduced
into writing and copy of the same has been annexed
with the petition, as Annexure P-3.
5. On all these submissions, a prayer to allow the
present petition, by quashing the FIR in question, as
well as, proceedings resultant thereto, has been made.
6. When put to notice, respondent-State has filed
the status report, disclosing therein the manner, in
which, the FIR in question has been registered and
Police, after investigating the matter, submitted the
report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C., which is
pending in the learned trial Court. The proceedings are
stated to be pending, before the learned trial Court.
7. Respondent No. 2, when appeared before this
.
Court, has made a statement on oath, disclosing therein
the manner, in which the FIR in question has been
lodged by her, against the petitioner. According to her,
of
due to some mis-understanding, she had lodged the FIR
in question, against the petitioner. But, now the matter
rt
has been compromised between the parties, vide
Annexure P-3, in order to maintain their cordial
relations, as the mis-understanding has been cleared
and petitioner and respondent No. 3 are residing
together happily, as husband-wife.
8. On the basis of compromise, Annexure P-3,
respondent No 2 has categorically stated that she does
not want to proceed further with the matter and she has
no objection, in the case the present petition is allowed
and the FIR in question, as well as, the proceedings
resultant thereto, are quashed.
9. Injured, respondent No. 3 has also made a
statement on oath, deposing that due to some mis-
understanding, the FIR was lodged by respondent No. 2
.
against the petitioner. She has further deposed that the
mis-understanding has now been cleared and the
matter has been compromised, between the parties,
of
vide Annexure P-3. She has further deposed that she is
residing happily in her matrimonial home, alongwith
rt
petitioner and their children.
10. Lastly, she has deposed that she has no
objection, in case the present petition is allowed and the
FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant
thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are
quashed.
11. Petitioner has also made the statement on oath,
re-asserting the above factual position.
12. Heard.
13. The FIR, in the present case, has been
registered under Sections 307, 504 and 506 of IPC, in
which Police has submitted report under Section 173(2)
Cr. P.C., which is pending before the learned trial Court.
In view of the relationship between the parties, i.e.
petitioner and respondent No. 3, who are not strangers,
.
but husband-wife, who, as per their stand, are now
residing happily together, this Court is of the view that
in the present case, genuineness of the compromise
of
Annexure P-3, cannot be doubted.
14. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace
rt
and harmony in the society and when, the parties to the
lis, i.e. petitioner and respondents No. 2 and 3, have
compromised the matter, then, the continuation of the
criminal proceedings, arising out of the FIR in question,
lodged by respondent No. 2, would certainly amount to
abuse of the process of law.
15. Acceptance of the compromise will not only help
the petitioner and respondent No.3 to live happily in the
matrimonial home, but will also save the precious
judicial time of the learned trial Court, as the learned
trial Court will be in a position to devote such time, for
deciding some other serious disputes, pending before it.
16. Otherwise also, the person, who has put
criminal machinery into motion, has stated, on oath,
that due to some mis-understanding, she has lodged
.
the FIR in question, against the petitioner, but the same
has now been cleared, in such situation, chances of
success of prosecution case, against the petitioner, are
of
not so bright.
17. Moreover, the present case does not fall within
rt
the exception, as carved out by Hon'ble Apex Court in
Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab
and another, (2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 466. para-
29.3 of the judgment is reproduced as under:
29.3. Such a power is not be exercised in those
prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of
mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.
Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious
impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have
been committed under special statute like the Prevention
of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public
Servants while working in that capacity are not to be
quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the
victim and the offender.
18. Considering all these facts, the present petition
is allowed and FIR No. 95 of 2020, dated 28.7.2020,
under Sections 307, 504 and 506 of the IPC and the
proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the
learned trial Court, are quashed.
.
19. The statements, so recorded, before this Court,
as well as, compromise deed Annexure P-3, shall form
part of the judgment.
of
20. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid
terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also
rt
stands disposed of.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
January 5, 2024
Kalpana
