Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jagtar Singh And Another vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another on 28 August, 2019
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No. 435 of 2019
.
Date of decision: 28.8.2019
Jagtar Singh and Another. ...Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Another. ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioners: Mr.Dinesh Bhanot, Advocate alongwith
r Jagtar Singh petitioner No.1 present in
person.
For the Respondents: Mr.S.C. Sharma and Mr.Desh Raj Thakur,
Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr.R.P.
Singh, Deputy Advocate General for
respondent No. 1.
Mr.Sanjeev Mankotia, Advocate, for
respondent No. 2 alongwith Asha Devi
respondent No.2 present in person.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (oral)
The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred to as 'Cr.PC') has been filed by petitioners, on the basis of compromise arrived at between parties, for quashing of FIR No. 46 of 2018, dated 28.11.2018, under Sections 498- A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as 'IPC') Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:46:59 :::HCHP 2 Cr. MMO No. 435 of 2019 registered at Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P., and criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto.
2. Petitioner No.1 Jagtar Singh and respondent No.2 Asha .
Devi are present in person, who are duly identified by their respective counsel and their statements on oath, have been recorded.
3. Respondent No. 2/complainant in her statement has deposed that she was married with petitioner No. 1 in the year 2015, however, their relations could not remain cordial, which resulted into lodging of present FIR and thereafter on 8.1.2019, the dispute between them was settled with the intervention of relatives and elders of the society and compromise between them was also reduced into writing on 8.1.2019, which was signed by her and she has identified her signatures thereon and in pursuance to the said compromise they had filed a divorce petition on 8.1.2019 in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Nalagarh for dissolution of marriage wherein, in July, 2019, a decree for dissolution of their marriage has been passed and as per compromise she has received the permanent alimony and now in terms and conditions of compromise, she does not want to continue with the criminal proceedings against the petitioners and further deposed that she has signed the compromise deed and deposed in the Court out of her free will, consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:46:59 :::HCHP 3 Cr. MMO No. 435 of 20194. Petitioner No. 1/accused Jagtar Singh in his statement has endorsed the statement of complainant/respondent No. 2 to be true, and he has identified his signatures on the compromise deed annexed with .
the petition and he has no claim or grudge of any kind against respondent No. 2 and he has further stated that he has signed the compromise deed and has deposed in this Court out of his free will, consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.
5. It is contended on behalf of respondent No. 1-State that petitioner/accused is not entitled to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court to exercise its power on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties with respect to an offence not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C.
6. It is apt to record herein that a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, explaining that High Court has inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with no statutory limitation including Section 320 Cr.P.C., has held that these powers are to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court and these powers can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings or complaint or FIR in appropriate cases where offender and victim have settled their dispute and for that purpose no definite category of offence can be prescribed. However, it is also observed that Courts must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime and criminal ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:46:59 :::HCHP 4 Cr. MMO No. 435 of 2019 proceedings in heinous and serious offences or offence like murder, rape and dacoity etc. should not be quashed despite victim or victim family have settled the dispute with offender. Jurisdiction vested in High Court .
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is held to be exercisable for quashing criminal proceedings in cases having overwhelming and predominatingly civil flavour particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil partnership, or such like transactions, or even offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc., family disputes or other such disputes where wrong is basically private or personal nature where parties mutually resolve their dispute amicably. It was also held that no category or cases for this purpose could be prescribed and each case has to be dealt with on its own merit but it is also clarified that this power does not extend to crimes against society.
7. The Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and also in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) 5 SCC 688 has summed up and laid down principles, by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with criminal proceedings.
8. No doubt Section 498-A IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr. P.C. However, as explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:46:59 :::HCHP 5 Cr. MMO No. 435 of 2019 in Gian Singh's, Narinder Singh's and Laxmi Narayan's cases supra, power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC is not inhibited by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. and FIR as well as criminal .
proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC, if it is warranted in given facts and circumstances of the case for ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, even in those cases which are not compoundable where parties have settled the matter between themselves.
9. In present case, complainant-respondent No. 2 has also appeared in person in this Court and her statement, as discussed in para 2 supra, has also been recorded in this Court, wherein she has expressed her desire to close the proceedings against petitioners.
10. In Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized and advised that in the matter of compromise in criminal proceedings, keeping in view of nature of this case, to save the time of the Court for utilizing to decide more effective and meaningful litigation, a commonsense approach, based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of law, should be applied.
11. Offences in question, for material on record, do not fall in the category of offences termed to be prohibited, in the pronouncements of Apex Court, to be compounded exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In view of statement of respondent No. 2-complainant, recorded on oath in this Court, probability of conviction is too remote.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:46:59 :::HCHP 6 Cr. MMO No. 435 of 201912. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and considering facts and evidence of the case in its entirety, present petition is allowed and matter is permitted to be compounded.
.
Consequently, FIR No. 46 of 2018, dated 28.11.2018, registered at Police Station, Baddi, District Solan, H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR No. 46 of 2018, criminal proceedings arisen in pursuance thereto, if any, also stand quashed.
13. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also pending applications, if any.
Copy Dasti.
(Vivek Singh Thakur), th 28 August, 2019 Judge.
(Keshav) ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:46:59 :::HCHP