Himachal Pradesh High Court
Karan vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 3 January, 2023
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr.M.M.O No.1191 of 2022
Date of Decision: January 3, 2023
.
Karan ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ..Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner: Ms.Deeksha Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr.Harinder Singh Rawat, Additional
Advocate General, for respondent No.1.
Mr.Sunil Dutt Gautam, Advocate, vice
r Mr.Manoj Rana, Advocate, for respondents
No.2 and 3.
ASI Mohan Singh, Police Station,
Dharampur, District Solan, H.P., is present
in person.
Petitioner-Karan, respondent No.2-Munni
Lal & respondent No.3-Yogita, are 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 petitioner-Karan, on the basis of compromise arrived at between him and complainant-respondent No.2-Muni Lal, for quashing of FIR No.107 of 2020, dated 01.07.2020, registered in Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, H.P., under Sections 363, 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:24 :::CIS 2Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act') and consequent proceedings arising thereto.
2. Accused-petitioner-Karan, Complainant-respondent .
No.2-Munni Lal and respondent No.3-Yogita, are present in person, who have been duly identified by their respective learned counsel and their statements have also been recorded separately.
3. In her statement, respondent No.3-victim-Yogita has stated that she was knowing Karan since last four years and they were in love with each other and they intended to marry. She has further stated that one day, she had gone with Karan and did not come back home in time, because of which her father lodged FIR and lateron, she came back home at her own and at that time she was under duress. Further that, out of fear, she did not disclose truth that she was in love with Karan, but deposed according to version of her parents, but both of them continued affair with each other. Further that, after knowing this fact, families of both sides, i.e. her parents as well as parents of Karan, agreed to solemnize their marriage and ultimately after attaining age of 18 years by her, their marriage was solemnized on 27.09.2022 in Mahakaleshwar Temple, Shri Sanatan Dharam Sabha, Housing Board Colony, Solan. Further that, Temple has also issued certificate to this effect. She has further stated that their marriage has also been registered with Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriage, of Gram Panchayat, Dharampur, District Solan, H.P. Further that, her name has also been entered in the ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:24 :::CIS 3 Family Register of family of her in-laws (husband). She has further stated that her father had lodged FIR for her protection, but continuation of criminal proceedings consequent to FIR are .
going to cause damage to her family life and causing prejudice to her interests and that they are living under one roof happily with cordial relations. She has further stated that both families are in talking and visiting terms with each other and under these circumstances, it is necessary to quash the FIR alongwith criminal proceedings arising thereto.
4. In his statement, petitioner-Karan by endorsing statement of her wife Yogita-respondent No.3 to be true and correct, has undertaken to keep his wife-Yogita happily and to maintain her and his family in future.
5. In his statement complainant-Munni Lal-respondent No.2 has endorsed the statements of petitioner-Karan and his daughter Yogita-respondent No.3 to be true and correct. He has further stated that for the interest of both families, he may be permitted to withdraw the complaint for quashing the FIR and criminal proceedings arising thereto.
6. In their statements, Yogita-respondent No.3, respondent No.2-Munni Lal and Karan-petitioner have also stated that they have deposed in this Court, out of their free will, consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.
7. Status report has been filed alongwith Marriage Registration Certificate and Family Register of the Panchayat, ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:24 :::CIS 4 indicating solemnization and registration of marriage of petitioner-Karan and respondent No.3-victim-Yogita.
8. 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 ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:24 :::CIS 5 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.
.
9. 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 that these powers are not inhibited by provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C.
10. 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.
11. No doubt Sections 376, 363, 366 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act 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 Cr.PC, if warranted in given facts and ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:24 :::CIS 6 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.
12. 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.
13. Learned counsel for the accused/petitioner has also referred to judgments passed by the Coordinate Benches in Cr.MMO No. 301 of 2018, decided on 24.04.2019, titled as Asha Devi & others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & another; Cr.MMO No. 399 of 2018, decided on 18.09.2018, titled Court of H.P. as Kajal & another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & another;
Cr.MMO No. 244 of 2019, decided on 07.05.2019 titled as X vs. State of H.P. & others, Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 139 of 2018, decided on 26.5.2018, titled Sahil Chaudhary vs. State of H.P. and another, Cr.MMO No. 464 of 2018 decided on 9.8.2019 titled as Shri Devi vs. State of H.P. and another, Cr.MMO No. 377 of 2019 decided on 27.8.2019 titled as Shishpal vs. State of H.P. and another; Cr.MMO No. 41 of 2019 decided on 24.9.2019 titled as Ravi Goyal and another vs. State of H.P. and others; Rahul Thakur Vs. State of H.P., reported in 2020(2) Shim.LC 629;
::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:24 :::CIS 7Cr.MMO No. 423 of 2020, titled as Rajneesh Kumari Vs. State, decided on 15.3.2021; and Cr.MMO No. 144 of 2021, Ashok Kumar Vs. State, decided on 27.4.2021, wherein FIRs registered .
under Section 376 IPC and in some cases under Section 376 IPC read with provisions of POCSO Act have also been quashed in similar circumstances where victims and accused had married to each other.
14. It is a case where two societal interests are in clash.
To punish the offenders for a crime, involved in present case, is in the interest of society, but, at the same time, petitioner-
accused has solemnized marriage with respondent No.-3 Yogita and they are living happily and harmoniously and it is also in the interest of society to settle and re-settle the family for their welfare. Respondent No.3-victim is now, major and her father respondent No.2-complainant-Munni Lal intends to withdraw complaint as continuation of case shall adversely affect the future prospects of family life harming their interest as well as interest of the families.
15. Now, the matter has been amicably settled between the private parties on the basis of compromise arrived at between them. As such, I am of the considered view that no fruitful purpose shall be served to continue the proceedings against petitioner No.1.
16. 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 accordingly FIR No.107 of 2020, ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:24 :::CIS 8 dated 01.09.2020, registered in Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, H.P., is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings initiated against petitioner-accused, are .
also quashed.
17. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.
18. Parties are permitted to produce/use copy of this order, downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the trial Court/authorities concerned, and the said Court/authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy but if required, may verify passing of the order from Website of the High Court.
( Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.
January 3, 2023 (Purohit) ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:24 :::CIS