Himachal Pradesh High Court
Davinder Singh & Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 30 December, 2019
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No. 790 of 2019
.
Date of decision: 30.12.2019
Davinder Singh & others. ...Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others. ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioners: Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate.
Petitioners Davinder Singh and Bimla Devi
present in person.
For the Respondents: Mr.S.C. Sharma, Additional Advocate General
with Mr.R.P. Singh and Mr.Kuldeep Chand
Thakur, Deputy Advocate Generals, for
respondents No. 1 to 3.
Mr.Shourya Sharma, Advocate, for respondent
No. 4.
Ranbir Singh, father of respondent No. 4
Minakshi Devi 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- accused, on the basis of compromise arrived at between them and complainant-respondent No. 4 Minakshi Devi, for quashing FIR No. 219 of 2018, dated 16.10.2018, under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as 'IPC'), registered at Police Station Amb, District Una, H.P. and criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto.
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2020 20:24:43 :::HCHP 2 Cr. MMO No. 790 of 2019
2. Petitioner No. 1 Davinder Singh and Ranbir Singh, father of complainant/respondent No. 4 Minakshi Devi are present in person and duly identified by their respective counsels and their statements have been .
recorded, on oath.
3. Petitioner No. 1 Davinder Singh in his statement has deposed that he was married to respondent No. 4 Minakshi Devi, but because of differences of opinion, they could not continue the said relation and dispute between them had resulted into lodging of FIR against him, his mother and father, i.e. respondents No. 2 and 3, but later on matter has been settled between them and settlement deed arrived at Mediation Center, Una, District Una, H.P. has been reduced into writing, which has been placed on record as Annexure P-2 and thereafter their marriage also stands dissolved by decree of divorce passed on the basis of mutual consent by learned Additional District Judge, Amb, District Una in HMA No. 286 of 2018 and thereafter respondent No. 4 Minakshi Devi has also married to someone else and is now residing in her matrimonial home at Ludhiana, He has also stated that father of respondent No. 4, who is present in the Court today, has also witnessed the settlement deed arrived at between them and that he has also brought certified copy of settlement deed Annexure P-2 (certified copy stands compared with the photocopy and returned). He has further deposed that he has signed the settlement deed and deposed in the Court out of his free will, consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.
4. Ranbir Singh father of respondent No. 4-complainant Minakshi Devi in his statement has deposed that respondent No. 4 Minakshi Devi, (his daughter) was married to petitioner No. 1 Davinder Singh. He has further stated that he has heard statement of petitioner No. 1 Devinder Singh and endorsed the same to be true and correct. He has also deposed that he is witness to the settlement deed (Annexure P-2), arrived at between the ::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2020 20:24:43 :::HCHP 3 Cr. MMO No. 790 of 2019 parties during mediation proceedings in the Mediation Centre, Una, District Una, H.P. and the said settlement deed has been signed by him, his daughter Minakshi Devi. He has identified signatures of his daughter .
Minakshi thereon and also identified his signatures on the said settlement deed, He has further stated that marriage between his daughter and petitioner No. 1 stands dissolved vide judgment dated 15.5.2019, with mutual consent of the parties, by learned Additional District Judge (I), Una camp at Amb, District Una, H.P. in HMA No. 286 of 2018 and thereafter his daughter has re-married to one Mr.Pardeep, resident of Ludhiana and that she is not able to come to Shimla during winter on account of severe backache. He has further deposed that he has signed the settlement deed and deposed in the 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 respondents-State that petitioners/accused are 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 proceedings in heinous and ::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2020 20:24:43 :::HCHP 4 Cr. MMO No. 790 of 2019 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 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 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.
9. No doubt Sections 498A 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, Parbatbhai Aahir's and Laxmi Narayan's cases supra, power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC is not inhibited ::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2020 20:24:43 :::HCHP 5 Cr. MMO No. 790 of 2019 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.
10 In present case, settlement has been arrived at between the parties during mediation proceedings in Mediation Centre, Una, which has been placed on record as Annexure P-2 and thereafter, both the parties are living separately.
11. 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.
12. 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 statements of respondent No. 2-complainant, recorded on oath in this Court, family dispute has been settled.
13. 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. 219 of 2018, dated 16.10.2018, registered at Police Station Amb, District Una, H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR No. 219 of 2018, criminal proceedings i.e. case No. 181 of 2018, titled as State of H.P. Vs. Davinder Singh and others pending in the Court of ::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2020 20:24:43 :::HCHP 6 Cr. MMO No. 790 of 2019 Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb, District Una, H.P., also stand quashed.
14. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also .
pending applications, if any.
Copy Dasti.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
30th December, 2019 Judge.
(KRS)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2020 20:24:43 :::HCHP