Himachal Pradesh High Court
Nisha Pathania And Another vs State Of Hp And Others on 18 October, 2016
Author: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
Bench: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Cr.MMO No. 180 of 2016
Decided on: 18th October, 2016
.
Nisha Pathania and another .......Petitioners.
Versus
State of HP and others ...Respondents.
of
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the petitioners
rt : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Gaurav Thakur, Advocate.
For respondents : Mr. D.S. Nainta and Mr. Virender
Verma,Addl. Advocate General for
respondent No. 1.
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge (Oral)
Petitioners are husband and wife in relation. They have jointly approached this Court by filing the present petition with a prayer to quash FIR No. 52/2016, Annexure P-1 registered against petitioner No. 2 and her parents respondents No. 2 and 3 as well as sister, respondent No. 4 under Sections 498-A, 406, 354(A) (1), 504, 506, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code at the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:23:40 :::HCHP 2instance of petitioner No. 1 in Police Station, Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. as well as consequential criminal .
proceedings pending disposal in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. on presentation of challan against them.
Petitioner No. 1 and her husband petitioner No. 2 as of well as her in-laws respondents No. 2 to 4 have patched up all differences amongst them. As a matter of fact, petitioner No. 1 had joined the rt company of petitioner No. 2 and her in-laws respondents No. 2 to 4 and is residing with them in the matrimonial home since 26.04.2016. It is on account of such development, the present petition came to be filed by the parties jointly because the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC is not compoundable even with the permission of the Court also.
2. The statements of the parties i.e. both the petitioners and Shri K.S. Pathania, respondent No. 2 who happens to be one of the accused person in the criminal case have been recorded separately.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:23:40 :::HCHP 3Petitioner No. 1 at whose instance criminal proceedings came to be instituted against her .
husband petitioner No. 2 and her in-laws, respondents No. 2 to 4 has no objection in case the FIR Annexure P-
1 is quashed.
3. Be it stated that petitioner No. 1 and of petitioner No. 2 who are of very young age have now patched up all the differences cropped up amongst them on account of certain misunderstanding and rt are living together in the matrimonial home.
4. As per legal position settled at this stage even in a case where compounding of an offence is not possible the parties, viz the victim of an occurrence and the accused, if compromised the disputes between them in an amicable settlement may approach the High Court for quashing the FIR.
The support in this regard can be drawn from the judgment of the apex Court in Gian Singh versus State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 SCC 30. The relevant text of this judgment reads as follows:-
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:23:40 :::HCHP 4" 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 of dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding rt 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 IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:23:40 :::HCHP 5 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 of offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically rt 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 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."::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:23:40 :::HCHP 6
5. In view of the law laid down by the apex Court in the judgment supra, the High Court in .
exercise of the inherent powers vested in it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may quash the FIR in a case where the offence allegedly committed by the accused though is not of compoundable; however, the victim and accused have settled the disputes amicably and the victim is no more interested to prosecute the accused and rt also the complaint made against the accused. Such powers, of course, have to be exercised sparingly and in appropriate cases having arisen out of civil mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or any other transactions of like nature including matrimonial or the cases relating to dowry etc., in which the wrong basically is done to the victim.
6. Since the wrong in this case, if any, is done to the complainant, who is petitioner No.1 in this petition and as she is no more interested to prosecute the complaint as in view of the subsequent developments i.e. settlement of dispute between her ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:23:40 :::HCHP 7 and petitioner No. 2, she is no more interested to prosecute the complaint she lodged against him as .
well as his parents and also the sister-in-law, no useful purpose is likely to be served to allow the proceedings in the criminal case to continue against them for the reason that the prosecution in such subsequent of development ultimately is likely to be terminated in acquittal of the accused. Therefore, allowing the criminal case pending against the petitioners would rt amount to abuse of process of law. Being so, this petition deserves to be allowed.
7. In view of what has been said hereinabove, this petition is allowed. Consequently, FIR No. 52/2016, registered against petitioner No.2 and respondents No. 2 to 4 under Sections 498-A, 406, 354(A) (1), 504, 506, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station, Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. as well as consequential criminal proceedings pending disposal in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. shall stand quashed and set aside.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:23:40 :::HCHP 88. An authenticated of this judgment be sent to learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jawali, .
District Kangra for compliance.
9. The petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.
(Dharam Chand Chaudhary)
of
October 18, 2016(ND) Judge.
rt
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:23:40 :::HCHP