Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sunny Malhotra And Another vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another on 19 July, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.205 of 2024
Date of Decision: 19.07.2024
.
_______________________________________________________
Sunny Malhotra and another .......Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & another ... Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioners: Mr. Goldy Kumar, 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 respondent No.1.
Mr. Bhag Chand Sharma, Advocate, for
respondent 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 the
petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 28 of 2021, dated 26.02.2021
under Sections 498-A, 504 and 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station,
Bhawarna, District, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh as well as
consequent proceedings pending adjudication before the competent
court of law, on the basis of the compromise arrived inter se parties,
whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute
amicably interse them.
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
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 No.2, Pallavi
(hereinafter referred to as the complainant), who alleged that her
marriage was solemnized with petitioner No.1 on 8.8.2020 as per
Hindu rites and customs. However, on account of matrimonial discord,
they were unable to live together for long. Since January,2021
complainant/respondent No.2 is living separately and by way of FIR,
sought to be quashed, she alleged that she was maltreated and
harassed by the petitioners on account of bringing less dowry. She
also alleged that petitioners not only misbehaved with her, but also
extended threats to her. In the aforesaid background, FIR, sought to
be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged against the
petitioners. Though, after completion of the investigation, police has
already presented the challan in the competent Court of law, but
before same could be taken to its logical end, parties have entered
into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute
amicably interse them. In the aforesaid background, petitioners have
approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR
as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending in the competent
Court of law.
3. Vide order dated 11.06.2024, this Court with a view to
ascertain the correctness and genuineness of the compromise placed
on record, deemed it necessary to cause presence of the parties in
the Court, especially respondent No.2. Besides above, this Court also
.
called upon the respondent-State to file status report, specifically
stating therein, factum of compromise, if any, arrived Interse parties.
Respondent-State has filed status report under the signatures of
SHO, police Station, Bhawarna, District Kangra, H.P. wherein factum
of compromise has been duly acknowledged. Alongwith aforesaid
status report, copy of statement of respondent No.2/complainant has
been also enclosed, wherein she has categorically deposed that she
has already entered into the compromise with the petitioners and as
such, she does not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have
no objection in case FIR, sought to be quashed, as well as
consequent proceedings are quashed and set-aside. Aforesaid status
report as well as copy of statement is taken on record.
4. Complainant/respondent No.2 has come present in Court
and is being represented by Mr. Bhag Chand Sharma, Advocate. She
states on oath before this Court that she of her own volition and
without there being any external pressure has entered into the
compromise with the petitioners, whereby they have resolved to settle
their dispute amicably interse them. She states that after lodging of
the FIR, sought to be quashed, she as well as petitioner No.1 has
agreed for dissolution of their marriage by way of mutual consent and
in this regard, have already filed petition under Section 13-B of the
Hindu Marriage Act in the competent court of law. She states that as
per the compromise, petitioner No.1 has agreed to pay her sum of
.
Rs. 4, 50,000/- as permanent alimony and out of which, she has
already received sum of Rs. 2, 50,000/- and remaining amount has
been agreed to be paid on 20.07.2024, on which date, matter has
been already fixed before the Court below. She states that on account
of amicable settlement interse parties, she shall have no objection in
case FIR as well as consequent proceedings, sought to be quashed
in the instant proceedings, are quashed and set aside and petitioners-
accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. While
admitting the contents of the compromise placed on record to be
correct, she also admits her signatures upon the same. Her
statement is taken on record.
5. After having heard aforesaid statement made by the
respondent No.2/complainant, Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional
Advocate General, fairly states that no fruitful purpose would be
served in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings sought to be
quashed are allowed to sustain. He further states that otherwise also,
chances of the conviction of the petitioner-accused are very remote
and bleak in view of the statement made by the
respondent/complainant and as such, respondent-State shall have no
objection in case the prayer made in the petition is allowed.
6. The question which now needs consideration is whether
FIR's in question can be ordered to be quashed when Hon'ble Apex
.
Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and
another (2014)6 SCC 466 has specifically held that power under S.
482 CrPC 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.
7. 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.
.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. In the case at hand also, offences alleged to have been
committed by the petitioners do not involve offences of moral
turpitude or any grave/heinous crime, rather same are petty offences,
as such, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the FIR as well as
consequential proceedings thereto, especially keeping in view the fact
.
that the petitioners and respondent No.2 have compromised the
matter interse them, in which case, possibility of conviction is remote
and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal
proceedings.
12. Since respondent No.2/complainant had been residing
separately for more than three years and she has already agreed for
dissolution of marriage by way of mutual consent and in that regard,
petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act already stands
filed in the competent Court of law, this Court before parting, wish to
make an observation that Court, while considering the prayer made in
the petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, shall
consider prayer, if any, to waive off the cooling period for the reason
that there is no possibility of rapprochement and marriage interse
them has broken beyond repair. Repeatedly, this Court as well as
Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of cases have categorically held that
when there is no possibility of rapprochement, Court should normally
waive off the cooling period, so that agony of the parties do not
prolong.
13. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well
as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 28 of
2021, dated 26.02.2021 under Sections 498-A, 504 and 34 of IPC,
registered at Police Station, Bhawarna, District, Kangra, Himachal
Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication
.
before the competent court of law, are quashed and set aside.
Petitioners-accused are acquitted of the charges framed against
them.
The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms,
alongwith all pending applications.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
19th July 2024
(shankar)
