Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Mittal & Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 6 August, 2019
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No. 368 of 2019
.
Date of Decision: August 6, 2019
Sanjay Mittal & others ...Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ..Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Petitioners: Mr. H.S. Rana, Advocate.
Petitioners Sanjay Mittal, Vishambar Dass,
Rakesh Kumar, Sita Devi and Manju Devi
are present in person.
For the Respondents: M/s S.C. Sharma & Desh Raj Thakur,
Additional Advocate Generals with Mr.R.P.
Singh, Deputy Advocate General, for
respondents No.1 and 2.
Ms.Kamlesh Kumari, Advocate, for
respondent No.3.
Pooja Devi Respondent No.3 is present in
person.
Vivek Singh Thakur, J. (oral)
The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC'), has been filed by petitioners, on the basis of compromise Annexure P-1 arrived at between the private parties, for quashing FIR No. 18 of 2017, dated 16.06.2017, registered at Mahila Police Station Baddi, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 01:50:16 :::HCHP 2Police District Baddi, H.P., under Sections 498-A and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as 'IPC').
.
2. Notice issued to respondent No.3-Pooja Devi has been received back with endorsement of her father that matter has been amicably settled and she is residing with her in-laws.
She has come to attend the Court with her husband and other family members of in-laws.
3. In statements of petitioners and respondent No.3, recorded on oath, it has come on record that petitioner No.1 Sanjay Mittal was married to respondent No.3-Pooja Devi on 27.11.2010 and there was matrimonial dispute among them, which had resulted into lodging of FIR involved in the present case under Sections 498-A and 406 read with Section 34 IPC at Mahila Police Station, Baddi, Police District Baddi, H.P.
4. In her statement recorded on oath, Pooja Devi-
respondent No.3 has stated that she is complainant in the present case and after marriage for the behaviour of her husband and his family members, a dispute had arisen, which resulted into lodging of FIR by her in the year, 2017 against her in-laws. She has further stated that later on with the intervention of the elders and common relatives dispute has been settled amicably and she is residing with her husband alongwith their children happily since 30.05.2019, as the petitioners have assured not to subject her with any type of cruelty either mental or physical with further assurance to look ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 01:50:16 :::HCHP 3 after her and her children in future. Therefore, she is not interested to continue with the present FIR lodged by her for betterment of her family and also keeping in view the future of .
their children. She has further stated that in pursuance to settlement arrived at between them for withdrawing the cases lodged by both sides a Compromise Deed (Annexure P-1) has also been reduced into writing, which was signed on 10.06.2019 by her as well as her husband petitioner No.1-Sanjay Mittal in presence of witnesses. She has further stated that she has signed this agreement and also deposing in the Court out of her free will and consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind. She has further prayed that keeping in view the assurance given by her in-laws and future of her children and for the betterment of her life, she may be permitted to withdraw the FIR and consequently criminal proceedings thereto also be quashed.
5. In his statement, petitioner No.1-Sanjay Mittal, endorsing the statement of his wife respondent No.3 Pooja Devi to be true and correct, has stated that after marriage with respondent No.3 Pooja Devi some differences had cropped up between them and on account of that their matrimonial relations were strained which had resulted in lodging of FIR No.18/2017 dated 16.06.2017 by his wife in Police Station Baddi, Police District Baddi, H.P., under Sections 498-A and 406 read with Section 34 IPC, against him and his other family members i.e. parents, brother and sister-in-law (Bhabhi). He has also stated ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 01:50:16 :::HCHP 4 that later on with the intervention of common relatives and elders, matter has been settled amicably and thereafter his wife respondent No.3 Pooja Devi is residing with him alongwith their .
two small sons. He has further stated that his parents, brother and sister-in-law (Bhabhi) are living separately, but they use to come their place of residence. He has also stated that he has undertaken to live with his wife peacefully and calmly, without subjecting her to any kind of cruelty and to look after her and children properly and he has no grudge against his wife Pooja Devi-respondent No.3 for lodging complaint against him and his other family members. He has further stated that he has signed the agreement Annexure P-1 and he is deposing in the Court out of his free will and consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.
6. In their joint statement recorded on oath, Vishambar Dass-petitioner No.2, Rakesh Kumar-petitioner No.3, Sita Devi-
petitioner No.4 and Manju Devi-petitioner No.5, endorsing the statements of Sanjay Mittal-petitioner No.1 and Pooja Devi-
respondent No.3 to be true and correct, have stated that both petitioner No.1-Sanjay Mittal and respondent No.3-Pooja Devi are living happily and they pray for their happy life. They have further stated that they are deposing in this Court out of their free will and consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.
7. Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors . reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 01:50:16 :::HCHP 5 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 - 29/09/2019 01:50:16 :::HCHP 68. 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. r
9. No doubt Sections 498-A of IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. However, as explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 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.
10. Now, the matrimonial dispute has been amicably resolved between the husband and wife and they are residing happily together alongwith their sons without any dispute and it will be in the interest of society and the family to end the litigation amongst family members. Otherwise also, I am of the ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 01:50:16 :::HCHP 7 considered view that no fruitful purpose shall be served to continue the proceedings against the petitioners.
11. Further, offence in question does not fall in the .
category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncements of the Apex Court by exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.
12. Keeping in view nature and gravity of offence, statements of parties and also considering facts and circumstances of the case in entirety, I am of the opinion that present petition deserves to be allowed for ends of justice and the same is allowed accordingly and FIR No. 18 of 2017, dated 16.06.20177, under Sections 498-A and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Mahila Police Station Baddi, Police District Baddi, H.P., is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings if initiated against petitioners-accused persons in pursuance thereto, are also quashed.
Petition stands disposed of in above terms.
Copy Dasti.
(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.
August 6, 2019 (Purohit) ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 01:50:16 :::HCHP