Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 9.9.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Anr on 9 September, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2024:HHC:8212
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
CrMMO No. 860 of 2024
Date of Decision: 9.9.2024
_____________________________________________________________________
Sh. Aman Anand and Anr.
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr.
.......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioners: M/s B.L. Soni, Nitin Soni and Sunil Gautam,
Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.
Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi
Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the State.
Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent
No.2.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of instant petition, prayer has been made on behalf of
the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 15/20, dated 18.7.2020, under
Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC, registered with Women Police Station Kullu,
District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings, if any,
pending before the court below, on the basis of compromise/amicable
settlement arrived inter-se parties.
2 2024:HHC:8212
2. Precisely, the case of the petitioners, as emerges from the
.
pleadings is that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings
came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2 (hereinafter,
'complainant'), who alleged that her marriage with petitioner No.1 was
solemnized on 24.7.2016 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Complainant,
who is a veterinary officer, alleged that though her relationship with
petitioner No.1-husband remained cordial till 2020, but thereafter, he as
well as his family members started maltreating her on trivial issues. She
alleged that she was also cursed and mentally harassed for bringing lesser
dowry. Having taken note of the aforesaid complaint, FIR sought to be
quashed came to be instituted against the petitioners, but before same
could be taken to its logical end, parties entered into compromise, whereby
they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them. In the
aforesaid backdrop, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant
proceedings for quashing of FIR.
3. Pursuant to notices issued in terms of order dated 6.9.2024,
respondent-State has filed status report under the signature of SHO PS
Kullu, wherein factum of compromise stands duly acknowledged alongwith
the aforesaid status report. Police has also placed on record copies of the
compromise, whereupon both the parties have appended their signatures.
3 2024:HHC:8212
4. Respondent-complainant has also come present in the court
.
today and is being represented by Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Advocate. She
states on oath that she of her own volition has entered into compromise,
whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably
interse them. She states that since FIR is a result of misunderstanding,
coupled with the fact that petitioners have apologized for their behaviour,
she shall have no objection in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings
are quashed and petitioners are acquitted of the charges framed against
them. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, she also
admits her signatures on the same.
5. Having heard the statement made on oath by respondent No.2-
complainant, Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General states
that no fruitful purpose will be served in case FIR as well consequent
proceedings are allowed to continue against the petitioners. He further
states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of the petitioners are
remote and bleak, on account of statement made by complainant, as such,
he shall have no objection in case prayer made on behalf of the petitioners
is accepted and FIR in question alongwith consequential proceedings is
quashed and set aside and petitioners are acquitted.
4 2024:HHC:8212
6. The question which now needs consideration is whether FIR 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. 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
5 2024:HHC:8212
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.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and
anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303 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
for compounding offences under Section 320 Cr.PC. Even in the judgment
passed in Narinder Singh's case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that
6 2024:HHC:8212
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
7 2024:HHC:8212
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 the complainant have compromised the matter inter-se them, in which
case, possibility of conviction of the petitioners is remote/bleak and no
fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal
proceedings.
12. Since parties have compromised the matter with each other
and respondent No.2-complainant, at whose instance, FIR sought to be
quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged, is no more
interested in pursuing the criminal prosecution of the petitioners, this
court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the
petitioners for quashing of the FIR alongwith all consequential proceedings.
13. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 15/20, dated
18.7.2020, under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC, registered with Women
Police Station Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh as well as
consequent proceedings, are quashed and set aside. Accused are acquitted
of the charges framed against them. The petition stands disposed of in the
aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications.
8 2024:HHC:8212
14. The parties are permitted to produce copy of this order
.
downloaded from the High Court website and the trial Court shall not insist
for certified copy of the order, however, it may verify the order from the
High Court website or otherwise.
September 9, 2024 (Sandeep Sharma),
(manjit) Judge
r to
