Himachal Pradesh High Court
Farooq And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another on 7 July, 2023
Author: Sushil Kukreja
Bench: Sushil Kukreja
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
Cr.MMO No.237 of 2023
Date of Decision: 07.07.2023
_________________________________________________
Farooq and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & another
...Respondents
_________________________________________________
Coram r
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1
________________________________________________
For the petitioner : Mr. Servedaman Rathore, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Jitender Kumar Sharma, Additional
Advocate General, for respondent No.1/
State.
________________________________________________
Sushil Kukreja, Judge (Oral)
The accused persons (petitioners herein), after compromising the matter with complainant-respondent No.2, have come up before this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), by invoking inherent powers of this Court, seeking quashing of FIR No.322/18, dated 17.11.2018, under Sections 498-A, 506 & 323 read 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2023 20:42:31 :::CIS 2with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), registered at .
Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P.
2. Today, petitioner No.1, Faroog is present in person before this Court and his statement has been separately recorded and placed on the case file.
3. In his statement, petitioner No.1 Farooq, has stated that his marriage was solemnized with respondent No.2 as per Mohammedan Rites and Customs on 22.04.2018 in village Puruwala, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., but their marriage could not continue in cordial and harmonious atmosphere. Thereafter respondent No.2 had filed a complaint, on the basis of which, FIR No.322/18, dated 17.11.2018, under Sections 498-A, 506 & 323 read with Section 34, IPC was registered against him and petitioners No.2 to 5, at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. Now, the matter has been compromised between him and respondent No.2 before this Court in Criminal Revision No.123 of 2022. Therefore, in view of the said compromise, the FIR in question and the consequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR pending before the ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2023 20:42:31 :::CIS 3 learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1 .
Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., may be quashed and set aside.
4. Respondent No.2-complainant has not appeared before this Court, despite service. However, in Criminal Revision No.123 of 2022, decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 11.01.2023, respondent No.2, in her statement, had deposed as under:-
"I have heard the statement made by Farooq, which has been explained to me in vernacular. I endorse the same to be true and correct. I endorse the compromise and contents of the same narrated in the statement of Farooq. In case it is not possible for me to attend the Court for quashing FIR and criminal proceedings arising thereto and the same shall be quashed and set aside in my absence by placing on record certified copy of my statement as well as copy of order passed in the present petition.
I have entered into compromise and have deposed in the Court out of my free will and consent and without any threat, coercion or pressure of any kind."
5. Since respondent No.2-complainant herself made a statement that in case it was not possible for her to attend the Court for quashing FIR and criminal proceedings ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2023 20:42:31 :::CIS 4 arising thereto, the same shall be quashed and set aside in .
her absence.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1/ State and also gone through the material available on record.
7. 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., the Hon'ble Apex Court 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 ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2023 20:42:31 :::CIS 5 etc. should not be quashed despite victim or victim's 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 predominately 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.
8. Further, the Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbhathbhai 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 ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2023 20:42:31 :::CIS 6 that these powers are not inhibited by provisions of Section .
320, Cr.P.C.
9. 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, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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.
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 the nature of the case, to save the time of the Court for utilizing to decide more effective and meaningful litigation, a common sense approach, based on ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2023 20:42:31 :::CIS 7 ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of law, .
should be applied.
11. In the instant case, since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, therefore, keeping in view the nature of the offence, I am of the considered view that no fruitful purpose will be served to continue the proceedings against r petitioners-accused persons as continuation of the proceedings will be an exercise in futility.
The justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored in order to maintain harmonious relations/atmosphere between them.
12. Hence, considering the facts and the circumstances of the case in entirety, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed for securing the ends of justice and, therefore, the same is allowed.
Accordingly, FIR No.322/18, dated 17.11.2018, under Sections 498-A, 506 & 323 read with Section 34, IPC, registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. and the consequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2023 20:42:31 :::CIS 8 Magistrate, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., .
are ordered to be quashed and set-aside.
13. The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.
( Sushil Kukreja )
July 07, 2023 Judge
(VH)
::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2023 20:42:31 :::CIS