Himachal Pradesh High Court
Lekh Raj And Another vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 15 November, 2019
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.527 of 2019
Date of decision: 15.11.2019
.
Lekh Raj and another ...Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioners: Mr. Devi Singh Verma, Advocate vice
Mr.Chandranarayana Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent:
r Mr.S.C. Sharma Additional Advocate General.
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, for quashing FIR No. 44, dated 4.4.2018 registered at P.S. Rohru, District Shimla, under Sections 323, 326, 307 read with Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as 'IPC') and criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto.
2. On 23rd October, 2019, petitioner No.1/accused Lekh Raj and petitioner No.2/complainant Smt. Reena Dhagta, were present in the Court. On that day, their statements were recorded on oath. 3 In his statement, petitioner No.1 Lekh Raj has stated that he is accused in present case wherein FIR was lodged by his wife against him, on 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2019 20:24:19 :::HCHP 2 account of an incident detailed in FIR for which he has no explanation on his part, except that the said incident was unwarranted and he is unable to explain the reason for that. He has further stated that he has repentance for .
the act committed by him against his wife, who is earning livelihood for the family by serving as a teacher/Principal in a private school and thus, feeling guilty for the said incident, for number of times, he has also begged pardon from his wife. It is further stated by him that he has also undertaken not to repeat such act in future and in fact before the incident or after the incident he has never behaved in such a manner, rather he used and uses to help his wife in household work and managing the family affairs as she has to go out of house for serving in school. He has stated that they have two children and their daughter is studying in 9th class and son is studying in 7 th class in Government Senior Secondary School, Tikkar and they, all four, are living under one roof since beginning i.e. before the incident and after the incident and no such incident has been repeated by him thereafter and they are living with peace and harmony. He has also deposed that they are having cordial relations with each other and therefore, for the sake of family and also for not repeating such an act thereafter, but helping his wife in every sphere of life, his wife has also decided to pardon him and she has filed the present petition as co-petitioner with him and she has also come in Court. He has also stated that he has deposed in Court out of his free will, consent and without any coercion, threat or pressure of any kind. ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2019 20:24:19 :::HCHP 3
4. Petitioner No. 2/complainant Reena Dhagta, wife of accused, in her statement, has deposed that she is complainant in present case lodged by her against her husband for the incident occurred on 4.8.2018.
.
She has stated that neither before the said incident nor thereafter her husband i.e. petitioner No.1 Lekh Raj has ever committed such an act and behaved in such a manner, rather he was and is always helpful in household work and maintaining the family. She has stated that he also used to do the household works for helping her and now he is behaving properly and in case he is punished, she, despite being complainant in present case, would be sufferer along with her children as their family will be ruined and for saving their family and to avoid further sufferings, she has prayed for quashing of FIR. She has also stated that she has heard the statement of her husband and endorsed the same to be true and correct and stated that before the incident her husband was living and after the incident is living as a responsible husband and helping her in every sphere of life, therefore, she has prayed for quashing the FIR and criminal proceedings arising out thereto. She has also stated that she has deposed in this Court out of her free will, consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.
5. No reply has been filed by respondent/State. However, it is contended on behalf of respondent-State that accused is not entitled to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court to exercise its power keeping in view the nature of offence committed by petitioner. ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2019 20:24:19 :::HCHP 4 6 Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. 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.PC, 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 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.PC 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.
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2019 20:24:19 :::HCHP 5 7 The Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbathbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017)9 SCC 641 summarizing the broad principles regarding inherent .
powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has recognized that these powers are not inhibited by provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. 8 The Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others 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. 9 No doubt Sections 307 and 326 of IPC are not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. However, as explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's, Narinder Singh's, Parbatbhai Aahir'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 CrPC and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, if 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.
::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2019 20:24:19 :::HCHP 6 10 Family is a primary unit of society, which gives protection to all family members. Therefore, there is always endeavour to save the family. By saving a family, we definitely save the fabric of society and thus any .
endeavour to save the family is also interest of society. Therefore, in present case, there is conflict of interest not only between victim and societal interest but also amongst divergent societal interest i.e. to continue proceedings for commission of an offence having adverse impact on the society and to save the family in larger interest of society.
11 Now, couple is residing under one roof along with their children and petitioner No.1 has also mended his ways and is helping his wife in every sphere of life and and for future, petitioner No.1 Lekh Raj has undertaken not to repeat such act. Thus considering entire facts, I am of the considered view that no fruitful purpose shall be served by continuing the proceedings against petitioner No.1, rather it would be detrimental to the complainant and her family.
12 It is case of a peculiar nature wherein true deposition of complainant would ruin not only her personal life but also of her children whereas, detracting from complainant would put her in hot water. It is not a case where husband is harassing his wife regularly and continuing his ill behaviour, but here is a case of stray incident of violence by husband. Undoubtedly, such incident is depricable and cannot be justified at any stretch of imagination. Entire judicial system is to punish the culprit and to ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2019 20:24:19 :::HCHP 7 protect the victim. But at the same time, if punishment to offender is amounting to throttle the victim, the Court has to act exceptionally. 13 Taking holistic view of facts and circumstances of the case, .
present petition deserves to be allowed for ends of justice and the same is allowed accordingly and FIR No.44 of 2018 dated 4.4.2018 registered at Police Station, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto and pending in the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Shimla camp at Rohru are also quashed.
14 Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(Vivek Singh Thakur), th 15 November, 2019 Judge.
(ms) ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2019 20:24:19 :::HCHP