Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rishab Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another on 19 May, 2023
Author: Sushil Kukreja
Bench: Sushil Kukreja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 826 of 2022 Reserved on: 17.04.2023 Decided on: 19.05.2023 .
Rishab Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & another ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. B.N. Sharma and Mr. Raj Kumar
Negi, Additional Advocates
r General, with Ms. Leena Guleria
and Ms. Avni Kochhar Mehta,
Deputy Advocates General, for
respondent No. 1.
Mr. Gambhir Singh, Advocate, for
respondent No. 2.
______________________________________________________________ Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
The instant petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by petitioner, with a prayer to quash and set-aside FIR No. 16 of 2019, dated 09.04.2019, registered against him at Police Station Brow, District Kullu, H.P., under Sections 363, 366A, 376 IPC read with Section 4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(i) w (i) of SC & ST Act and the consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR.
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2023 20:58:38 :::CIS 22. The facts of the case, as emerge from the records, can be encapsulated as under:
2(a). On 09.04.2019 the complainant/victim (name .
withheld) made a complaint to the police, wherein she alleged that she was 17 years old and for the last 3-4 months, she was in touch with the petitioner/accused. On
03.04.2019 the petitioner called and asked her to meet at Rampur. Both of them met at Rampur and on being persuaded, she accompanied him to the bus stand, as the petitioner had to leave to Shimla. After that, the complainant told the petitioner that she had to go home, but the petitioner insisted her to stay back and took her to a hotel at Rampur, where the petitioner made physical relations with her in the hotel room. On the very next day, the petitioner went to Shimla, however, the complainant did not go to her home due to fear and instead, she went to her sister's house at Kalpa, Kinnaur. She told everything to her parents and called the petitioner to convey him that she told everything to her family. Thereafter, the petitioner asked her to come to Shimla and on 05.04.2019, the complainant came to Shimla and the petitioner took her to a hotel at Chhota Shimla, where also he committed forcible sexual intercourse with her.
::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2023 20:58:38 :::CIS 3On the next day, the complainant took the petitioner to her aunt's house at Sanjauli, where father of the petitioner asked her about her caste and on knowing about her caste, the .
petitioner refused to marry her. On the above allegations, the complainant made a complaint to the police.
Consequently, FIR, as detailed hereinabove came to be registered against the petitioner.
2(b). As per the petitioner, the trial in the case is underway and the statement of the complainant has already been recorded by the learned Trial Court, wherein, nothing incriminating has come against him. By highlighting the statement of the complainant, so recorded by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner prayed for quashing of FIR No. 16 of 2019, dated 09.04.2019 and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
3. Respondent No. 1/State filed reply to the petition, wherein it is averred that the instant petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner has committed heinous crime with a minor and after completion of investigation, there was sufficient material against the petitioner, so the petitioner was booked under Section 363, 366A, 376 IPC, Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(i)w(i) of the SC & ST Act. It is ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2023 20:58:38 :::CIS 4 further averred that in case the instant petition is allowed, it will cause prejudice to the complainant and the society as well. Lastly, it is prayed that the instant petition be .
dismissed.
4. On the other hand, complainant/respondent No. 2, by filing reply to the petition, submitted that the FIR has been lodged against the petitioner, due to some misunderstanding and she did not want to pursue the case. It is further averred by her that the instant petition may be allowed and the FIR registered against the petitioner may be quashed as both the petitioner as well as the complainant are having cordial relations and the pending litigation may deteriorate their relations.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No. 1/State as well as the learned counsel for complainant/respondent No. 2 and also gone through the material available on record.
6. Before adverting to the rival contentions raised, it would be appropriate for this Court to first discuss the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the quashing of FIR. In State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch.
::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2023 20:58:38 :::CIS 5Bhajan Lal and Ors., 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid the guidelines for quashing the FIR, which read as under:-
.
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima- facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2023 20:58:38 :::CIS 6
4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) .
of the Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
7. From the perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned that High Court, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India or Section 482 Cr. P.C. may interfere in proceedings relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, but such power should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2023 20:58:38 :::CIS 78. 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 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 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2023 20:58:38 :::CIS 8 the time of the Court for utilizing to decide more effective and meaningful litigation, a common sense approach, based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of law, .
should be applied.
11. In the instant case, the complainant, by filing reply to the petition, submitted that the FIR was lodged against the petitioner due to some misunderstanding and she did not want to pursue the case, as both the petitioner as well as the complainant were having cordial relations and the pending litigation might deteriorate their relations. Reply is duly supported with the affidavit of the complainant. Moreover, during the trial, the complainant appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and deposed that the accused did not commit any wrong act with her during night. The relevant portion of the statement of complainant is reproduced as under:-
" Stated that I am doing LLB course from Solan. My date of birth is 20.10.2001. Again stated that this date of birth is in the record, however, my actual date of birth is 15.01.2001. I belong to Scheduled Caste category. On 03.04.2019, I received a telephone call from the accused, present in the court. (Victim identified the accused in the court and said that he is Rishab). Accused told me that he is coming to Rampur. He told me that whether I could come to meet him. I told that I will come. Thereafter, I came to Rampur market to meet the accused. I got acquainted with Rishab through facebook. I knew him for past three months. We met ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2023 20:58:38 :::CIS 9 in Rampur at the main market. Thereafter, we went to Dakolar. Rishab was to go to Shimla, so, we, went to New Bus Stand from Dakolar. Accused did not get any bus to go to Shimla, thereafter, we both stayed at the bus stand, where we booked a room in a .
hotel. We stayed at the hotel that night. Accused did not commit any wrong act with me during night."
12. Thus, as per the statement of the complainant herself, recorded before the learned trial Court, the petitioner did not commit any wrong act with her and in the reply filed before this Court also the complainant submitted that the FIR was lodged against the petitioner due misunderstanding and she did not want to pursue the case, r to some as both the petitioner as well as the complainant were having cordial relations and the pending litigation might deteriorate their relations. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I am of the considered view that no fruitful purpose will be served to continue the proceedings against the petitioner-
accused, 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.
13. Hence, considering the facts and the circumstances of the case in entirety, I am of the opinion that ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2023 20:58:38 :::CIS 10 the present petition deserves to be allowed for securing the ends of justice and, therefore, the same is allowed.
Accordingly, F.I.R. bearing No. 16/2019, dated 09.04.2019, .
registered at Police Station Brow, District Kullu, H.P., under Sections 363, 366A, 376 of IPC, Section 4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(i) w (i) of SC & ST Act, as well as consequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court quashed and set aside.
r to (Rape/POCSO), Kinnaur at Rampur, are ordered to be
14. Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending application, if any.
( Sushil Kukreja )
May 19, 2023 Judge
(raman)
::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2023 20:58:38 :::CIS