Himachal Pradesh High Court
Abhay Thakur And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another on 30 June, 2017
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No. 207 of 2016.
Decided on: 30.6.2017.
.
Abhay Thakur and others. ....Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and another ... Respondents.
................................................................................................
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the petitioners. : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Divya
Raj Singh Thakur, Advocate.
For respondents. : Mr. Vikram Thakur, Dy. Advocate General for
respondent No.1.
: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for respondent
No.2.
Ajay Mohan Goel, J (Oral)
By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code prayers, inter alia, have been made for quashing of FIR No. 15 of 2016 dated 16.2.2016 registered at Police Station, Rohru, District Shimla under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') on the grounds of falsity and for want of territorial jurisdiction and in the alternative for transfer of the case to the competent Courts at Shimla, however, today when this case was taken up it has been jointly submitted by petitioners as well as 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2017 23:58:46 :::HCHP 2respondent No.2-Anjana Thakur that the matter stands amicably settled between the parties, therefore the FIR be quashed. Statements of respondent No.2-Anjana Thakur as well as Abhay Thakur one of .
the petitioners and husband of respondent No.2-Anjana Thakur have been recorded separately to this effect. In her statement complainant/respondent No.2 has categorically stated that as the matter stands amicably settled between her and the petitioners she is no more interested in pursuing the FIR No. 15 of 2016 dated 16.2.2016 which stands registered at her behest under Section 498-A of IPC at Police Station, Rohru, Distt. Shimla and she has no objection in case said FIR No. 15 of 2016 is ordered to be quashed.
2. Mr. Abhay Thakur by way of his statement recorded separately has also stated that the matter stands amicably resolved between the petitioners and respondent No.2 and he has assured that respondent No.2 i.e. his wife shall be treated with all affection, care and love which she is entitled to and henceforth both of them shall live peacefully as husband and wife.
3. Mr. Vikram Thakur learned Deputy Advocate General has also stated that in view of the statements so recorded of the complainant/respondent No.2 as well as petitioner No.1 and more so being a matrimonial issue which stands amicably settled between husband and wife, the State has also no objection in case the FIR No. ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2017 23:58:46 :::HCHP 3 15 of 2016 so registered at the behest of respondent No.2-Anjana Thakur is quashed.
4. This court is not powerless in such situation and adequate .
powers have been conferred upon it under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'). This power has been conferred to subserve the ends of justice or/and to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. Though, such power is required to be exercised with circumspection and in cases which do not involve heinous and serious offence of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. The law on this subject has been summed up in a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. V. State of Punjab & Anr. JT 2014 (4) SC 573, wherein it was held as under:-
"(I) 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 the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is t to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
(II) When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
(III) 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, ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2017 23:58:46 :::HCHP 4 for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the of 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.
.
(IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
(V) While exercising its powers, the 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.
(VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.
(VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2017 23:58:46 :::HCHP 5 facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case .
finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime."
5. As already observed herein, the parties have already reached an r amicable settlement and at best it was the complainant/respondent who could be said to be affected and aggrieved party, but herein even the affected and aggrieved party i.e. complainant/respondent is not interested to pursue the FIR and does not want to hold the petitioner responsible for the offence under the Act. Therefore, quashing of the FIR initiated at the instance of the respondent/complainant would be a step towards securing the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of the Court.
6. Keeping in mind the aforesaid exposition of law, it is clear that the facts of this case do not in any manner fall within the exception culled out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh's case (supra).
7. Thus, taking holistic view of the matter and further taking into consideration all the attending facts and circumstances as ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2017 23:58:46 :::HCHP 6 also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh's case (supra), I find this to be a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 of the Code.
.
8. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion this petition is allowed in the following terms:
a) In view of the statements so made by complainant/respondent No.2 that she is no more interested in pursuing FIR No. 15 of 2016 dated 16.2.2016 registered at Police Station, Rohru District Shimla under Section 498-A of IPC, the said FIR is quashed.
b) The statements so recorded of the complainant/respondent No.2 as well as petitioner No.1 shall constitute part of the present order.
9. This Court hopes and expects that both the parties shall abide by their respective statements which stand recorded in the Court and in case either of the parties do not comply with the same then the same shall be construed to be the violation of the order so passed by the Court. Learned counsel for complainant/respondent No.2 submits that ISTRIDHAN of respondent No.2-Anjana Thakur is lying deposited at Women Police Station, New Shimla. Dowry articles which are lying in the custody of Women Police Station, New Shimla be released to the complainant in accordance with law. This Court ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2017 23:58:46 :::HCHP 7 places on record its appreciation for the efforts made by Ms. Sunita Sharma, learned Mediator for having the matter amicably resolved between the parties.
.
10. During the course of arguments this Court was apprised by learned counsel for the parties that there is an FIR pending at Police Station, Sadar Shimla i.e. FIR No. 70 of 2017 dated 29.4.2017 under Sections 341, 323, 504, 34 IPC. Parties have jointly prayed that in view of the matter having been amicably settled between the parties said FIR No. 70 of 2017 dated 29.4.2017 be also quashed. On enquiry this Court was informed that the said FIR No. 70 of 2017 dated 29.4.2017 has not been lodged by respondent No.2 but the complainant in the same is father of respondent No.2 namely, Desh Raj Thakur. Mr. Desh Raj Thakur is present in person who has been duly identified by respondent No.2. Mr. Desh Raj Thakur also states that in view of the matter having been settled between his daughter and his son-in-law, he is no more interested in pursuing the said FIR which stands lodged at his behest at Police Station, Sadar Shimla and he has no objection in case said FIR is also ordered to be quashed in these proceedings itself, though the said FIR is not subject matter of the present case. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is ordering quashing of said FIR No. 70 of 2017 dated 29.4.2017 registered at Police Station Sadar ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2017 23:58:46 :::HCHP 8 Shimla in view of the fact that as the matter stands amicably settled between the parties, it will be in the interest of justice that the said FIR is also quashed and set aside so that there is no pending case etc. .
which may sour their relations.
The petition is disposed of in the above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application if any.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge 30th June, 2017.
(Guleria) ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2017 23:58:46 :::HCHP