Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ravinder Kumar And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another on 3 January, 2020
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .
Cr.MMO No.739 of 2019 Reserved on : 23.12.2019 Date of decision : January 3, 2020 Ravinder Kumar and others ... Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and another
r ...Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioners : Mr. Tarun Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans and Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Addl. A.Gs. for respondent No.1/ State.
Mr. Sunny Dhatwalia, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Anoop Chitkara, Judge The Accused, after compromising the entire matter with the injured, has come up before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by invoking inherent powers, seeking quashing of FIR No.47/2018 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 20:27:33 :::HCHP...2...
dated 10.4.2018, under Sections 498-A, 406 read with 34 of IPC, in .
the file of Police Station, Barsar, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, and all subsequent proceedings.
2. The present F.I.R. stands registered on the basis of information given by Smt. Shanvli Sharma, who has been arrayed as respondent No.2 in the present petition, and Mr. Sunny Dhatwalia, Advocate duly represents her.
3. FACTS: The gist of the entire case is as follows:
a) The present FIR was registered on the basis of information given by Smt. Shanvli Sharma, complainant.
She stated that her marriage was solemnized with accused Ravinder Kumar on 10.2.2015 as Hindu custom. After the marriage, for some time everything was going smoothly, but after some time, the relation between her and her husband became stringent. After 10-15 days of the marriage, when her husband was going back to join his duties, he told her that her parents have not given him car. On this, she told him that her parents have given her FDR of worth Rs.1,00,000/-. He asked her to break that FRD as he had to purchase new car and other articles. Thereafter, on many occasions, her husband and in-laws harassed her physically and mentally for bringing insufficient dowry. Even her husband threatened her that he would marry someone ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 20:27:33 :::HCHP ...3...
else and would settle abroad. On these allegations, present FIR was registered.
.
b) Now the parties have entered into a written compromise which has been placed on record as Annexure P-2.
c) Respondent No.2 Smt. Shanvli Sharma, had put in appearance and made statement on oath that he has compromised the entire matter with the accused Ravinder Kumar and others, the present petitioners. The statement is taken on file.
4. REASONING: The following aspects would be relevant to arrive at a final conclusion in this petition:-
a) The private respondent No.2 stated that the FIR in question was registered on the basis of complainant made by her and now he has amicably settled the matter with the petitioners without any coercion, duress, pressure or any wrong tactics.
b) Although, the withdrawal of FIR would be through District Magistrate as a normal procedure. However, there is inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to intervene in such kind of matter. It is not the requirement of law that the cancellation has to be approved only through the District Magistrate. Inherent Jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can always be exercised, ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 20:27:33 :::HCHP ...4...
depending upon the facts and circumstances of each and every case.
.
c) Even if, this case is put to trial, the parties are likely to maintain the stand which they have taken in this compromise, which is likely to result in the acquittal of the accused.
5. STAGE OF QUASHING FIR:
a) In Ashok Chaturvedi and others v. Shitul H. Chanchani and another, 1998(7) SCC 698, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that the determination of the question as regards the propriety of the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing process need not necessarily wait till the stage of framing the charge. The Court observed thus :-
"5.... .... ....This argument, however, does not appeal to us inasmuch as merely because an accused has a right to plead at the time of framing of charges that there is no sufficient material for such framing of charges as provided in Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he is debarred from approaching the court even at an earliest (sic earlier) point of time when the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence and summons the accused to appear to contend that the very issuance of the order of taking cognizance is invalid on the ground that no offence can be said to have been made out on the allegations made in the complaint petition.::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 20:27:33 :::HCHP
...5...
It has been held in a number of cases that power under Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly and in the interest .
of justice. But allowing the criminal proceeding to continue even where the allegations in the complaint petition do not make out any offence would be tantamount to an abuse of the process of court, and therefore, there cannot be any dispute that in such case power under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised."
b) In Kunstocom Electronics (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Gilt Pack Ltd.
and another, (2002) 2 SCC 383, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds as under:-
"8. .... .... ....There is no hard and fast rule that the objection as to cognizability of offence and maintainability of the complaint should be allowed to be raised only at the time of framing the charge."
6. JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ON JURISPRUDENCE OF QUASHING:
a) In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, a three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"6. .... ... ...It is well established that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Ordinarily, criminal proceedings instituted against an ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 20:27:33 :::HCHP ...6...
accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code, and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with .
the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage. It is not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of this inherent jurisdiction. However, we may indicate some categories of cases where the inherent jurisdiction can and should be exercised for quashing the proceedings. There may be cases where it may be possible for the High Court to take the view that the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused person may amount to the abuse of the process of the Court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice. If the criminal proceeding in question is in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by an accused person and it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding, the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings on that ground. Absence of the requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this category. Cases may also arise where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases no question of appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the First Information Report to ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 20:27:33 :::HCHP ...7...
decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. In such case, it would be legitimate for the High Court to hold .
that it would be manifestly unjust to allow the process of the criminal Court to be issued against the accused person. A third category of cases in which the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be successfully invoked may also arise. In cases falling under this category the allegations made against the accused person do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. In dealing with this class of cases, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and cases where there is legal evidence which on its appreciation may or may not support the accusation in question. In exercising its jurisdiction under S. 561-A, the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. That is the function of the trial magistrate, and ordinarily it would not be open to any party to invoke the High Court's inherent jurisdiction and contend that on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence the accusation made against the accused would not be sustained. Broadly stated that is the nature and scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under S. 561-A in the matter of quashing criminal proceedings, and ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 20:27:33 :::HCHP ...8...
that is the effect of the judicial decisions on the point (Vide : In Re: Shripad G. Chandavarkar, AIR 1928 Bom 184, Jagat .
Chandra Mozumdar v. Queen Empress, ILR 26 Cal 786, Dr. Shankar Singh v. State of Punjab, 56 Pun LR 54 : (AIR 1954 Punj 193), Nripendra Bhusan Roy v. Gobina Bandhu Majumdar, AIR 1924 Cal 1018 and Ramanathan Chettiyar v. Sivarama Subramania, ILR 47 Mad 722 : (AIR 1925 Mad
39)."
b) In Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 (1) SCC 692, a three judges bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court holds:-
"7. The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage."
::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 20:27:33 :::HCHP...9...
7. JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ON QUASHING ON COMPROMISE:
a) A three Judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Gian .
Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303, has settled the law on quashing on account of compromise/compounding, in the following terms:
"53. Section 482 of the Code, as its very language suggests, saves the inherent power of the High Court which it has by virtue of it being a superior court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It begins with the words, 'nothing in this Code' which means that the provision is an overriding provision. These words leave no manner of doubt that none of the provisions of the Code limits or restricts the inherent power. The guideline for exercise of such power is provided in Section 482 itself i.e., to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. As has been repeatedly stated that Section 482 confers no new powers on High Court; it merely safeguards existing inherent powers possessed by High Court necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. It is equally well settled that the power is not to be resorted to if there is specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of an aggrieved party. It should be exercised very sparingly and it should not be exercised as against the ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 20:27:33 :::HCHP ...10...
express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code.
.
57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.
58. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 20:27:33 :::HCHP ...11...
justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist .
in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well- being of society and it is not safe to leave the crime- doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under Indian Penal Code or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all.
However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 20:27:33 :::HCHP ...12...
of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice .
shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed."
b) In Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & anr., (2017) 9 SCC 641, a Three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court, laid down the broad principles for quashing of FIR, which are reproduced as follows:
"16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions :
16 (i) 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. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;
16 (ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 20:27:33 :::HCHP ...13...
offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section .
320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
16 (iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding 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;
16 (iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; 16 (v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated; 16 (vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 20:27:33 :::HCHP ...14...
depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though .
the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;
16 (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;
16 (viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;
16 (ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 20:27:33 :::HCHP ...15...
criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and .
16 (x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well- being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic r fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."
8. JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS IN WHICH FIR UNDER SECTION 498-A:
a) In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, Supreme Court observed:
30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498A Indian Penal Code are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bonafide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 20:27:33 :::HCHP
...16...
31. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of .
family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.
32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.
33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 20:27:33 :::HCHP ...17...
and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by .
the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.
b) In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., 2012(10) SCC 741, Supreme Court holds,
28. We, therefore, deem it just and legally appropriate to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra as the FIR does not disclose any material which could be held to be constituting any offence against these two appellants. Merely by making a general allegation that they were also involved in physical and mental torture of the complainant-respondent No. 2 without mentioning even a single incident against them as also the fact as to how they could be motivated to demand dowry when they are only related as brother and sister of the complainant's husband, we are pleased to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings in so far as these appellants are concerned and consequently the order passed by the High Court shall stand overruled.
c) In Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2016) 9 SCC 1, Supreme Court holds,
22. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the allegations made in the FIR are inherently improbable and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the appellants herein. Further, to invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court must be fully satisfied that the material produced on record is based on sound, justifiable and reasonable facts. In the case on hand, malicious prosecution was instituted by the brother of the deceased after a period ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 20:27:33 :::HCHP ...18...
of five years that too on the basis of anonymous letters. There was no accusation against the appellants before filing .
of the FIR. The allegations are vague and do not warrant continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellants.
d) In Varala Bharath Kumar v. State of Telangana, (2017) 9 SCC 413, Supreme Court holds,
6. It is by now well settled that the extraordinary power under Article 226 or inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised by the High Court, either to prevent abuse of process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Where allegations made in the First Information Report/the complaint or the outcome of investigation as found in the Charge Sheet, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case against the accused; where the allegations do not disclose the ingredients of the offence alleged; where the uncontroverted allegations made in the First Information Report or complaint and the material collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of offence alleged and make out a case against the accused; where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure may be exercised.
7. While exercising power under Section 482 or under Article 226 in such matters, the court does not function as a Court of Appeal or Revision. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully or with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down under Section 482 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 20:27:33 :::HCHP ...19...
itself. It is to be exercised ex debitojustitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone .
courts exist. The court must be careful and see that its decision in exercise of its power is based on sound principles. The inherent powers should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage.
8. We are conscious of the fact that, Section 498A was added to the Code with a view to punish the husband or any of his relatives, who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. Keeping the afore-mentioned object in mind, we have dealt with the matter. We do not find any allegation of subjecting the complainant to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of I.P.C. The records at hand could not disclose any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the complainant to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the complainant. So also, there is nothing on record to show that there was a demand of dowry by the appellants or any of their relatives, either prior to the marriage, during the marriage or after the marriage. The record also does not disclose anywhere that the husband of the complainant acted, with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of any property or valuable security.
9. The ingredients of criminal breach of trust are also not forthcoming from the records as against the appellants. The allegations contained in the complaint and the charge sheet do not satisfy the definition of criminal breach of trust, as contained in Section 405 of the I.P.C. In view of the blurred allegations, and as we find that the complainant is only citing the incidents of unhappiness with her husband, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the prosecution against the appellants. This is a case where there is a total absence ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 20:27:33 :::HCHP ...20...
of allegations for the offences punishable under Section 498A and Section 406 of the I.P.C. In the matter on hand, the .
allegations made in the First Information Report as well as the material collected during the investigation, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute the offences punishable under Section 498A and 406 of the I.P.C. against the accused/appellants. So also the uncontroverted allegations found against the appellants do not disclose the commission of the offence alleged and make out a case against the accused. The proceedings initiated against the appellants are liable to be quashed.
9. In the present case, the offence under Section 498-A IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Be that as it may, the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings.
10. In view of the entirety of the facts of the case, as well as judicial precedents, a few of which have been mentioned hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion that continuation of these proceedings will not only cause unnecessary burden on the trial Courts, but in all likelihood, is going to cause distressing hardship on both the victim as well as the accused, without resulting into any fruitful purpose whatsoever. Moreover, our trial Courts are already burdened with so many cases and it will be a total wastage of the valuable time of the Courts. If these types of proceedings are permitted to be continued ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 20:27:33 :::HCHP ...21...
and the accused are prosecuted, it will serve no purpose whatsoever.
.
Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case where the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is invoked to quash the above mentioned FIR and consequent proceedings.
11. In Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association v. State of Himachal Pradesh (SC); 2018 (4) Crimes 324, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds as under:-
"47. As far as Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 135 of 2017 is concerned, the appellants came to this Court challenging the order of cognizance only because of the reason that matter was already pending as the appellants had filed the Special Leave Petitions against the order of the High Court rejecting their petition for quashing of the FIR/Chargesheet. Having regard to these peculiar facts, writ petition has also been entertained. In any case, once we hold that FIR needs to be quashed, order of cognizance would automatically stands vitiated."
CONSEQUENCES:
12. In Shakuntala Sawhney v. Kaushalya Sawhney, (1979) 3 SCR 639, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 20:27:33 :::HCHP...22...
"The finest hour of Justice arise propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and .
weave a sense of fellowship or reunion."
13. Consequently, this petition is allowed and FIR No.47/2018 dated 10.4.2018, under Sections 498-A, 406 read with 34 of IPC, in the file of Police Station, Barsar, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, is quashed qua the petitioners. Since the FIR has been quashed, all the consequential proceedings, if any, are also quashed and set aside. The bail bonds are accordingly discharged.
Petition is allowed. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(Anoop Chitkara), Judge.
January 3, 2020 (KS) ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 20:27:33 :::HCHP