Sahnazar vs State Of Uttarakhand & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 2066 UK

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                  AT NAINITAL

             Criminal Writ Petition No. 696 of 2022

Sahnazar                                       ..... Petitioner
                                Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors.                      .....Respondents

Present:
      Mr. Mohd. Safdar, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
      Mr. P.S. Uniyal, the learned Brief Holder for the State.
      Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, the learned counsel for the
      complainant.

                    Date of hearing: 11.07.2022

Sri S.K. Mishra, J.

By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the FIR dated 06.11.2020, registered as case crime no. 350 of 2020, under Section 498-A, 376, 377, 120B, 313, 323, 504 and 506 of the Penal Code and Under Section 3 & 4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriages) Act 2019, at P.S. Pathri, District Hariewar; and also to issue appropriate directions for not arresting the petitioner during the pendency of the writ application.

2. A compounding application has been filed wherein both the petitioner and respondent no. 3 have filed appropriate affidavit and prayed to quash the FIR.

3. I have carefully examined their Aadhar Cards. Xerox copies thereof signed by the parties themselves and attested by their respective learned counsel are filed and kept on record.

4. It is borne out from the record that initially FIR was lodged by private respondent no. 3 which was culminated

filing a final report. A protest petition was filed by the informant and by invoking Section 156 (3) of the Code, the learned Magistrate directed the concerned police to take up further investigation. That further investigation is pending at present. In the meantime, it is also borne out from the record that the parties have compromised their dispute and they started living together, in fact respondent no. 1 is four months pregnant at present. It is also not disputed that FIR is filed after the marriage, so, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that offence under Section 376 of the Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner.

5. Be that as it may, considering the facts of the case, this Court is of the opinion that further continuance of the criminal investigation against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law. In this connection, we take note of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Jaimeet Singh Kalra & others vs. State and Another, 2022 SCC Online Del 1753, wherein at paragraph 20, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court took into considerations that are to be kept in mind while passing an order under Section 482 of the Code. The same principle applies to in a proceeding under Section 226 of the Constitution also. Thus, we hereby take note of the observations made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court , which is quoted below:

"20. The inherent powers under section 482 of the Code can be used to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh as referred hereinabove laid down that inherent power under section 482 of the Code is required to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint

or FIR may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. However the Supreme Court cautioned that for exercise of inherent power due regard must be given to the nature and gravity of the crime and observed that heinous and serious offences such as murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be quashed even despite settlement of disputes between the victim and the offender as these offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. It was further observed that that the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for quashing including offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes as these disputes are private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved entire dispute. The High Court may also quash criminal proceedings where possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case is causing great oppression and prejudice to the accused and extreme injustice would be caused to him and to put an end to criminal case would be appropriate. The Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan besides reiterating principles laid down in Gian Singh case observed that while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of noncompoundable offences, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise, etc. The Supreme Court in Ramgopal & another v. State of Madhya Pradesh observed that the High Court after considering peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482 of the Code in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to secure the ends of justice. It was further observed that the High Court can quash non compoundable offences after considering nature of the offence and amicable settlement between the concerned parties. The High Court can evaluate the consequential effects of the offence and need to adopt a pragmatic approach to ensure that quashing is not paralyze the very object of the administration of criminal justice system. It was further observed that a restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code

may lead to rigid or specious justice which may lead to grave injustice."

6. Keeping in view the fact that both the petitioner and respondent no. 3 are husband and wife and they are residing peacefully at present and respondent no. 3 is not willing to proceed any further with the criminal case against the petitioner further, and, in fact, she is pregnant for four months, any order of allowing investigation to continue culminating in trial of the petitioner will be an abuse of process of law.

7. Hence, this Court is inclined the writ application. The writ petition is allowed. The FIR dated 06.11.2020, as mentioned at para 1, lodged at the instance of the Magistrate's order is hereby quashed. All pending applications are accordingly disposed of.

8. Urgent certified copy of the order be provided at per rules.

(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.)

PV