Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 04.07.2024 vs Sate Of Hp & Anr on 4 July, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2024:HHC:4507
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.426 of 2024
Date of Decision: 04.07.2024
.
_______________________________________________________
Ankit Kumar
.......Petitioner
Versus
Sate of HP & Anr.
... Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner:
Mr. G.R.Palsra, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr.
B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals
with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate
General for respondents No.1-State.
Mr. Jia Lal Thakur & Mr. Lokesh Thakur,
Advocates, for respondents No. 2.
_______________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of
petitioner for quashing of FIR No.96 of 2022, dated 24.03.2022, under
Sections 363, 376, 506 & 201 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of
POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Balh, District Mandi, H.P., as
well as consequent proceedings, pending adjudication in the
competent court of law, on the basis of the compromise arrived inter
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
parties, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably
inter se them.
.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the
record are that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings
came to be lodged at the behest of respondent/complainant No. 2
(hereinafter to be referred to as 'complainant), who alleged that she
had come in contact with the petitioner through Facebook/ Instagram.
She alleged that she had met petitioner for the first time at Ladraur
and thereafter, they had been talking and meeting with each other.
She alleged that one day petitioner-accused took her to Bilaspur on
his bike and compelled her to made physical relation with him. She
alleged that repeatedly petitioner-accused had developed physical
relation with her against her wishes and whenever she attempted to
raise her voice, she was threatened with dire consequences. She
alleged that repeatedly she was threatened by the petitioner-accused
that her obscene photos would be uploaded on the internet. In the
aforesaid background, FIR, as detailed herein above, came to be
lodged against the petitioner-accused under relevant provision of
Indian Penal Code/POCSO Act.
3. Though, after completion of investigation, Police has
already presented challan in the competent court of law against the
petitioner-accused under Sections 363, 376, 506 & 201 of Indian
Penal Code and Section 4 of POCSO Act, but before the same could
be taken to its logical end, parties have entered into compromise,
.
whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse
them. It has been averred in the petition that FIR sought to be
quashed is a result of misunderstanding. Since parents of the
complainant did not want to solemnize marriage of their daughter with
the petitioner, they compelled victim-prosecutrix to lodge false FIR
against the petitioner. It has been further averred in the petition that
victim-prosecutrix has already solemnized marriage with person
namely Sushil Kumar and at present she is living happy married life
and as such, with a view to save her matrimonial life, victim-
prosecutrix and petitioner have decided to compromise the matter. In
the aforesaid background, petitioner-accused has approached this
Court in the instant proceedings, for quashing of FIR as well as
consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the
competent court of law.
4. Vide order dated 24.05.2024, this court called upon
respondent-State to file status report, but the same is awaited.
Petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 have come present and are
being represented by Mr. G.R.Palsra and Mr. Jia Lal Thakur,
Advocates, respectively. Victim-prosecutrix states on oath that she of
her own free will and without any external pressure has entered into
compromise with the petitioner-accused, whereby both the parties
have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. She states
.
that FIR sought to be quashed is a result of misunderstanding and at
no point of time wrong, if any, was committed upon her by the
petitioner-accused, rather she of her own volition and without any
external pressure had been joining his company. She states that
since her parents did not want to solemnize her marriage with the
petitioner, they compelled her to lodge false FIR against the
petitioner. She states that now she has already solemnized marriage
with Mr. Sushil Kumar and as such, with a view to protect her married
life, does not want to prosecute the case further and shall have no
objection in case, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner-accused for
quashing of FIR through instant petition is accepted and he is
acquitted of charges framed against him. While admitting contents of
compromise placed on record to be correct, she also admits her
signatures thereupon. Her statement is taken on record.
5. After having heard aforesaid statement made by victim-
prosecutrix, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General,
fairly states that though petitioner is accused of having committed
heinous crime punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of
POCSO Act, but since victim-prosecutrix has already solemnized
marriage with some other person and she does not want to prosecute
the case further, this court may pass appropriate orders in the interest
of victim-prosecutrix. He fairly states that on account of statement
.
made by the victim-prosecutrix on oath before this court chances of
conviction of the petitioner-accused are very remote and bleak.
6. No doubt, having taken note of the allegation levelled
against the petitioner, wherein he has allegedly subjected the
victim/prosecutrix to forcible sexual intercourse against her wishes,
prayer made on behalf of the petitioner does not deserve to be
considered, especially in the light of the judgment rendered by
Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of
Punjab and another (2014)6 SCC 466, wherein it has been
specifically held that power under S. 482 Cr.P.C is not to be exercised
in the cases which involve heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., since such
offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on
society", however, having taken note of the fact that victim-prosecutrix
has already solemnized marriage with third person, coupled with the
fact that the victim/prosecutrix has categorically stated on oath before
this Court that FIR, sought to be quashed, is result of
misunderstanding and at no point of time, she was subjected to
forcible sexual intercourse, chances of conviction of the petitioner are
very remote and bleak. Since, it is quite apparent from the record that
prosecution initiated at the behest of respondent/complainant is
bound to fail, no fruitful purpose would be served by not allowing the
.
prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, rather refusal, if any, on the
part of the court to grant relief, as prayed for, apart from widening the
rift interse petitioner and respondent will also cause serious prejudice
to the victim-prosecutrix, who now stands married to third person.
8. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the
judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh (supra),
whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has formulated guidelines for
accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to
accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal
proceedings. Perusal of judgment referred to above clearly depicts
that in para 29.1, Hon'ble Apex Court has returned the findings that
power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished
from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences
under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the
Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash criminal
proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable and
where the parties have settled the matter between themselves,
however, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with great
caution. In para Nos. 29 to 29.7 of the judgment Hon'ble Apex Court
has laid down certain parameters to be followed, while compounding
offences.
.
9. Careful perusal of para 29.3 of the judgment suggests
that such a power is not to be exercised in the cases 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. Apart from this, offences 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. On the other hand, those criminal cases
having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly
arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial
relationship or family disputes may be quashed when the parties have
resolved their entire disputes among themselves. Aforesaid view
taken by Hon'ble Apex Court has been further reiterated in Gian
Singh v. State of Punjab and anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case Gian Singh supra has
held that power of the High Court in quashing of the criminal
proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power is
distinct and different from the power of a Criminal Court to compound
the offences under Section 320 Cr.PC. Even in the judgment passed
in Narinder Singh's case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while
exercising inherent power of quashment under Section 482 Cr.PC the
.
Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and
its social impact and it cautioned the Courts not to exercise the power
for quashing proceedings in heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc. However subsequently, the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Dimpey Gujral and Ors. vs. Union Territory
through Administrator, UT, Chandigarh and Ors. (2013) 11 SCC
497 has further reiterated that continuation of criminal proceedings
would tantamount to abuse of process of law because the alleged
offences are not heinous offences showing extreme depravity nor are
they against the society. Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that
when offences of a personal nature, burying them would bring about
peace and amity between the two sides.
11. Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 4th October,
2017, titled as Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai
Karmur and others versus State of Gujarat and Another, passed in
Criminal Appeal No.1723 of 2017 arising out of SLP(Crl) No.9549 of
2016, reiterated the principles/ parameters laid down in Narinder
Singh's case supra for accepting the settlement and quashing the
proceedings.
12. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid exposition of law
that High Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings
.
even in those cases which are not compoundable, but such power is
to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. In the judgments,
referred hereinabove, Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that
Court while exercising inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
must have due regard to the nature and gravity of offence sought to
be compounded. Hon'ble Apex Court has though held that heinous
and serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc.
cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of
the victim have settled the dispute, but it has also observed that while
exercising its powers, 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. Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that
Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C can also be
swayed by the fact that settlement between the parties is going to
result in harmony between them which may improve their future
relationship. Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment rendered in State of
Tamil Nadu supra, has reiterated that 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 and has held that the
power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is
.
non-compoundable. In the aforesaid judgment Hon'ble Apex Court
has held that while forming an opinion whether a criminal proceedings
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.
13. No doubt, in all the judgments, as taken note
hereinabove, Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not to be exercised in the cases which
involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences
like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., because quashing of FIR in such like
cases may have adverse effect on society. No doubt, in such like
cases interest of society is to be kept at forefront, but in the peculiar
facts and circumstances, as has been discussed hereinabove,
interest of victim-prosecutrix appears to be paramount importance
because in the event of continuation of criminal proceedings, married
life of victim-prosecutrix, who admittedly after lodging of FIR has
solemnized marriage, may be in jeopardy.
14. In view of above, this court finds the case at hand to be a
fit case, where this court can exercise power under Section 482
Cr.P.C to quash the FIR registered under relevant provisions of law.
15. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well
as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 96 of
.
2022, dated 24.03.2022, under Sections 363, 376, 506 & 201 of
Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of POCSO Act, registered at Police
Station Balh, District Mandi, H.P. as well as consequent proceedings
pending adjudication in the competent Court of law, are quashed and
set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him.
The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms,
alongwith all pending applications.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
July 04, 2024
(sunil)
